JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who styles himself as the brother of the detenu Yusuf @ Chikna Yusuf @ Mohmed Yusuf Salim Nurani, has impugned the order dated 30-12-2001 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 30-12-2000, was served on the detenu on 6-1-2001 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B, respectively to this petition.

2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Annexure B) would show that the impugned order is founded on two C.Rs. and two in-camera statements viz., C.R. No. 106/2000, under sections 452, 354, 427, 323, 506(II) I.P.C., registered on the basis of a complaint dated 16-4-2000 lodged by Smt. Chandni Desai at Malad Police Station and C.R. No. 259/2000 under section 395 I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 10-10-2000 lodged by Deepak Gaurishanker Dave at Mira Road Police Station and in-camera statements of two witnesses, viz., A and B which were recorded on 14-7-2000 and 13-7-2000, respectively.

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 ground 8(h) pleaded in the petition, on which ground alone this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them.

3. Ground 8(h) in short is that on 22-6-2001 the detenu through his lawyer had sent a representation to the State Government wherein it was prayed that the detention order issued against the detenu be revoked and certain vital documents be furnished to the detenu. The pleading in the ground is that vide communication dated 27-6-2001 addressed by the State Government to the lawyer of the detenu, which was received by the detenu's lawyer on 3-7-2001, it was conveyed that the detenu's representation was carefully considered by the Government and your request for supplying vital documents, pertains to the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai and you are requested to contact him. The grievance raised in the said ground is that the communication dated 27-6-2001 does not make it manifest whether the State Government allowed, revoked or rejected the representation of the detenu and it only indicates that the State Government has carefully considered the detenu's representation. In the circumstances the pleading in ground 8(h) is that the order of detention is illegal and bad in law and ought to be quashed and set side.

4. Ground No. 8(h) has been replied to in two returns viz., in the additional return filed by the Detaining Authority dated 19-9-2001 and in that of Mr. M.S. Kasardekar, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, dated 13-9-2001.

5. We now propose considering the reply furnished in the said returns. We begin with the additional return filed by the Detaining Authority.

Ground 8(h) has been replied to in para 3 of the said return. It has been stated therein as under :

The detenu's representation addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Preventive Detention) Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai, requesting for furnishing of vital documents, dated 22-6-2001 was forwarded to him. 23rd and 24th June, 2001 were holidays. It was forwarded to P.C.B. C.I.D. which received it on 29-6-2001, and forwarded it to the Sponsoring Authority for parawise remarks on 30-6-2001, 1-7-2001 was a holiday. On 3-7-2001 it was forwarded to the Public Prosecutor who prepared parawise comments and forwarded it to the Sponsoring Authority. On 3-7-2001 the parawise comments were forwarded to the S