JUDGMENT - Vishnu Sahai, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who styles herself as the wife of the detenu Pradip @ Bandya Dayal Nandoskar, has impugned the detention order dated 17-3-2000 passed by the 1st respondent Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment-1996).

The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 17-3-2000, was served on the detenu on 29-3-2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.

2. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the impugned order is founded on two C.Rs. viz. (I) C.R. No. 264/99 under sections 452 and 324 I.P.C. registered at R.A.K. Police Station on the basis of a complaint dated 25-9-99 filed by one Sanjay Salunke and (ii) C.R.No. 266/99 under sections 324 and 504 I.P.C. registered at R.A.K. Police Station on the basis of a complaint dated 26-9-99 filed by one, Darpan Thale, one L.A.C. viz. L.A.C. No. 5082 /99 under sections 4 25 of the Arms Act read with sections 37(a)(I) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act registered at R.A.K. Marg Police Station and two in camera statements viz. of two witnesses viz. A and B, which were recorded on 14-1-2000 and 15-1-2000 respectively.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since in our view a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the aforesaid CRs., LAC and the in camera statements is not necessary for adjudicating upon the solitary ground pressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner viz. ground 9A, we are not adverting to them.

4. We may straight away mention that this is a second writ petition against the impugned detention order; the first having been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of G.D. Patil and R.M. Lodha, JJ. vide their judgment dated 28-8-2000. Since ground 9A was not subsisting on the date on which the first writ petition was dismissed we have entertained this writ petition.

5. Ground 9-A in short is that the petitioner sent a representation, dated 11-12-2000, telegraphically to the State Government and so far she has not received any communication regarding the fate of the said representation and since the said representation has not been considered expeditiously the continued detention of the detenu is illegal and bad in law.

6. Ground 9-A has been replied to in para 2 of the return of Mr. M.B. Khopkar, Desk Officer, Home Department (Spl.) Mantralaya, Mumbai. In short it has been averred in the said paragraph that the detenu had been informed that he had a right to make a representation to the State Government and if he wished to make a representation it should be addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Preventive Detention), Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 but with mala fide intention the said representation has been addressed to the Governor of Maharashtra. It has also been averred in the said paragraph that the said representation (telegram) dated 11-12-2000 was received by the concerned department in Mantralaya on 14-2-2001; on 15-2-2001 the remarks of the Detaining Authority were called for; from 16-12-2001 to 19-2-2001 there were holidays; the remarks from the Detaining Authority were received on 20-2-2001; thereafter the representation was scrutinized and processed through the Desk Officer, to the Deputy Secretary; the Deputy Secretary forwarded it to the Principal Secretary (Preventive Detention) on 21-2-2001, who on 23-2-2001 forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), who under the rules of business of Government of Maharashtra was empowered to consider it; and on 24-2-2001 the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) care