The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the placement and contents of the grounds of detention, and the acceptance of the Detaining Authority's explanation that para 4 was only a preamble.

JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes herself as the mother of the detenu Farooq @ Firoz Hasan Bagwan, has impugned the detention order dated 30-11-2000, passed by the 1st respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, 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), hereinafter referred to as "the M.P.D.A. Act").

The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 30-11-2000, was served on the detenu on 5-12-2000 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 Three CRs. One L.A.C. (Local Act Case), and two in camera statements, the details of which are as under:

(i) (a) C.R. No. 160/2000 under sections 324, 34 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 14-3-2000 filed by one Nasruddin Kamaluddin Ansari, at Oshiwara Police Station (referred to in para 5(a)(ii) of the grounds of detention);

(ii) L.A.C. No. 770/2000 under sections 36(1)(a), 22 51 of Mumbai Police Act registered on the basis of a complaint dated 30-3-2000 (referred to in para 5(a)(iv) of the grounds of detention);

(iii) C.R. No. 278/2000 under section 379 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 4-5-2000 filed by one Manish Suresh Dhuri, at Oshiwara Police Station (referred to in para 5(b)(ii) of the grounds of detention);

(iv) C.R. No. 444/2000 under sections 384, 387 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 17-7-2000 filed by one Shaikh Rafruddin, at Oshiwara Police Station (referred to in para 5(c)(ii) of the grounds of detention);

(v) In-camera statement of witness A recorded on 22-7-2000, (referred to in para 5(d)(i)); and

(vi) In-camera statement of witness B, recorded on 26-7-2000, (referred to in para 5(d)(ii)).

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded a large number of grounds but he has only pressed before us one ground viz. ground No. 7(b). Ground No. 7(b) in short is that in ground No. 4 of the grounds of detention there is a reference to the earlier detention of the detenu in the year 1998 under M.P.D.A. Act vide D.O. No. 222/PCB/DP/Z-VII/98 dated 8-10-98 which has been considered by the Detaining Authority and although a copy of the detention order as well as a copy of the detailed order of earlier detention has been placed before the Detaining Authority and considered by it, the Detaining Authority has shown his unawareness that the said detention order was quashed by this Court on 20-7-1999, vide Criminal Writ Petition No. 25/99. It has further been pleaded that this shows non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority, which has vitiated his subjective satisfaction and rendered the detention order illegal and bad in law, making it liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Ground 7(b) has been replied to in para 11 of the return of the Detaining Authority, at pages 52 to 76 of the paper book. In the said paragraph the Detaining Authority has averred that para 4 of the grounds of detention was merely a preamble to the grounds of detention and the grounds of detention are mentioned in para 5. He has also averred therein that all the documents relied upon by him to issue the order of detention have been supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective and purposeful representation against the order of detention. He has further averred therein that he was not in any way influenced by the averments contained in para 4 of the grounds of detention and he was aware that the order had been set aside. But since the averments in para 4 were by way of preamble he did not consider it necessary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document