Per VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as friend of the detenu Kashinath Namdeo Naravade has impugned the detention order dated 4-8-2000 passed by the first respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay 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 4-8-2000 was served on the detenu on 20-8-2000.

2. A persual of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on one C.R. namely C.R. No. 53 of 2000 under section 447 I.P.C. read with section 26(1) and 30 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 registered on the basis of a complaint dated 8-3-2000 lodged by one Bhimrao Laxman Chougule at Kandivli (East) Police Station and in camera statement of three witnesses namely A (recorded on 8-5-2000, B (recorded on 8-5-2000 and C (recorded on 9-5-2000).

3. Since in our view a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention is not necessary for the adjudication of Grounds Nos. 6(C) and 6(E) pleaded in the petition, on which grounds in our view this writ petition deserves to be allowed, we are not adverting to them.

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Grounds 6(C) and 6(E) read thus :

6(C).

"The petitioner says and submits that the detenu has been furnished with Marathi translation of grounds of detention and all other grounds of the compilation. The petitioner says and submits that the detenu being a Maharashtrian is well conversant with Marathi language only. The petitioner says and submits that the Marathi translation of English documents furnished to the detenu are not true and correct translation of their conunterpart thereby not conveying faithful meaning of the original grounds of detention. The detenu says and submits that in para 5 of the grounds of detention the very crucial word "Subjective Satisfaction" is wrongly translated as "Personal Opinion" which amounts to non recording of the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The detenu further submits that in para 6 of grounds of detention the very crucial words "Public Order" as is wrongly translated as Public Safety. There are also many other wrong translation in the documents. Law is well settled that furnishing wrong translation amounts to non-compliance of grounds of detention, thus violating the first fact of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The petitioner further submits that as a result of furnishing wrong translation, the detenu could not make effective representation, thus violating both the facts of Article 22(5) of the Constitution".

6(E).

"The petitioner says and submits that even though the order of detention in English verse is dated 4-8-2000, it is found in its Marathi translation as 4-7-2000, which misleads and creates confusion about the exact date of detention. The petitioner says and submits that furnishing wrong translation particularly the date of detention, shows clear non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority. The order is illegal and bad-in-law".

5. Mr. Tripathi urged that on 23-8-2000, the detenu through him made a representation to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special) (Preventive Detention) Mantralaya, Mumbai mentioning therein the aforesaid mistake in the Marathi translation of the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu and although the said representation was received by the said functionary on 23-8-2000 itself, the correctly translated grounds of detention in Marathi, were supplied to the detenu as late as on 18-9-2000 whereby violating his fundamental right guaranteed by Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India of making a representation at the earliest opportunity.

6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document