The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in issuing a detention order must be specifically explained by the Detaining Authority, and failure to do so can impair the subjective satisfaction on the part of the Detaining Authority, vitiating the order of detention.

Headnote:
DELAY - DETENTION ORDER - The court quashed the detention order due to the inordinate delay in issuance of the order, which resulted in the live link between the prejudicial activity and the rational of claiming the detention order being snapped, vitiating the order of detention in law.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority detaining his material uncle under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delay in issuing the detention order was not explained by the Detaining Authority, leading to the quashing of the detention order.
Issues: The main issue was the inordinate delay in issuance of the detention order and its impact on the live link between the prejudicial activity and the rational of claiming the detention order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when there is a delay in issuing a detention order, it must be specifically explained by the Detaining Authority, and failure to do so impairs the subjective satisfaction on the part of the Detaining Authority, vitiating the order of detention.
Final Decision: The court quashed the detention order and ordered the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

JUDGMENT - P.S. BRAHME, J.:---The petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the detention order dated 30-11-2000 passed by the respondent No. 2 as Detaining Authority detaining his material uncle Vasant @ Vashya s/o Ramappa Suvarna in exercise of powers vested under the provisions of section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slum Lords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amended in 1996) (hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A. Act).

2. The grounds of detention and the detention order which are also dated 30-11-2000 are annexed as Annexure; P-1 and P-2 respectively to this petition. The order of detention has been confirmed by the respondent No. 1 on 23-1-2001.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition the learned Counsel for the petitioner has pleaded number of grounds, but since in our view this petition can be allowed on the ground mentioned in para No. 13 of the petition alone, we are not adverting to other grounds of challenge raised in the writ petition nor to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention warranting issuance of the impugned detention order.

4. The ground in paragraph 13 of the writ petition in short is that the respondent No. 2 relied upon the two in-camera statement of witnesses A and B. The witnesses have narrated in their statement regarding the incidents of June 2000 and August 2000. The order of detention is passed on 30-11-2000 i.e. almost after about 3 months from the last prejudicial activity. Therefore, there is inordinate delay in issuance of the impugned order of detention and on account of the same the live link between the prejudicial activity of the detenu and the rational of claiming of detention order on him is snapped vitiating the order of detention in law.

5. The Detaining Authority, respondent No. 2 in reply to this ground, on affidavit has stated that in-camera statements of witnesses A and B pertained to the first week and third week of June 2000 respectively. The in-camera statements were subjectively verified by the superior officer of the rank of the A.C.P. which he endorsed after the due verification and therefore, the reliance was placed on it by the Commissioner of Police Mumbai. In the reply we do not find even a whisper on the explanation of delay in passing the order of detention which is of about three months and twenty days. The Detaining Authority has been not explained this delay.

6. This Court in Writ Petition 57/2001 has considered the ground of objection, as to the delay in passing the order of detention. We have observed that "when there is delay in issuing detention order, the same has to be specifically explained by the detaining authority, in absence of which there is no live link between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the rational of clamping the detention Order on him which itself impairs the subjective satisfaction on the part of the Detaining Authority and the order of detention suffers from the vice of the non application of mind.

7. We refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of (Smt. Hemlata Kantilal Shaha v. State of Maharashtra)1, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 8. The Apex Court has held that the delay ipso facto in passing the Order of detention after the incident not fatal to the detention of a person for in certain cases delay may be uanvoidable or reasonable. What is required by law is that the delay must be specifically explained by the Detaining Authority.

8. We also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in (Nilkanth Paturkar v. C.S. Ramamurti and others)2, reported in J.T. 1992(3) S.C. 261, wherein the Apex Court found that when the plea of delay in issuance of the detention order is taken and the delay is not explained, whether short or long, the order should be quashed.

9. In the case before hand as stated earlier the Detaining Authority has not explained the delay and therefore we do not find that the detenti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document