JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:-----Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - detenu has impugned the detention Order dated 12-10-1998 passed by the first respondent Mr. Sudhakar Ambedkar, Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, detaining him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Mah. Act No. LV of 1981).

The detention Order dated 12-10-1998 along with the grounds of detention bearing the same date was served on the detenu on 13-10-1998. The true copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to the petition.

2.A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the detention order is based on three C. Rs. which have been filed against the petitioner - detenu at Rabale Police Station namely :-

(a) C.R. No. 284 of 1998 registered under section 147, 148, 384, 452 and 149 I.P.C. and sections 325(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act on 11-7-98;

(b) C.R. No. 321 of 1998 registered under sections 395/397 I.P.C. and section 325(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act on 11-8-98; and

(c) C.R. No. 327 of 1998 registered under section 399 I.P.C. and sections 325(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act on 19-8-98.

3.We have heard Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

The legal contention canvassed by Mr. U.N. Tripathi is contained in ground No. 5(F) of the petition. In the said ground, he has mentioned that although in para 3(b) of the grounds of detention, it has been mentioned that the identification parade was held in C.R. No. 284 of 1998, which took place in Thane Central Prison but, the report of the Identification Parade which was a vital document was neither placed before the Detaining Authority nor furnished to the detenu.

Mr. Tripathi urged that although he has not specifically pleaded but, the same is the position in respect of C.R. No. 321 of 1998.

In Mr. Tripathi's submission failure of the Sponsoring Authority to place before the Detaining Authority, copies of the identification parade reports, in C.R. No. 284 of 1998 and 321 of 1998 has vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority because, the said reports were a vital document and could have influenced his subjective satisfaction. Mr. Tripathi also contended that since it was a vital document, it should have been supplied by the Detaining Authority to the petitioner-detenu and the failure to do so, has impaired the right of the petitioner-detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

4.Ground No. 5(F) has ben replied in two returns namely those filed by the Detaining Authority on 28-6-1998 and 2-7-1999 respectively. A three-fold reply to the said ground has been furnished in the two returns namely :

(1) The Sponsoring Authority approached the proper authority to obtain the Identification Parade reports, but, the same could not be obtained;

(ii) A reference to the Identification Parade in the grounds of detention has been made to complete the narration of facts and reports of the Identification parade were not vital documents and

(iii) Even had the reports of the Identification Parades been placed before him, his subjective satisfaction would have remained the same.

To substantiate (i), Mr. Rajiv Patil invited our attention to a letter dated 17-10-1998 sent by P.S.I. of Rabale Police Station to the Sr. P.I. of the same Police Station wherein it has been mentioned that he tried to obtain a copy of the report of the Identification Parade in C.R. No. 284 of 1998 and 321 of 1998 from the Special Executive Magistrate, Bhiwandi but, the Special Executive Magistrate informed him that the reports of the Identification Parade have been forwarded in a sealed cover to the Court and expressed his inability to supply the same to him. This is borne out from t