The detenu's act of addressing the representation to the wrong authority caused the delay and could not be used to challenge the detention.

V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

( 1 ) THROUGH this petition, the petitioner-detenu has impugned the order of detention dated 22. 6. 2005 passed by Respondent No. 1 Shri. A. N. Roy, commissioner of Police Greater Mumbai. By the said order, the detenu came to be detained under the maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and dangerous Persons, Act, 1981 (Hereinafter referred to as "m. P. D. A. Act") as he is a slumlord.

( 2 ) A perusal of the grounds of detention, shows that the impugned order is founded on one C. R. i. e. C. R. No. 5 of 2005 and four incamera statements. The said crime is under Section 3 z-2 (6) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts relating to C. R. No. 5 of 2005 are that:"unauthorised hutments were constructed on government land on City Survey No. 263 which was demolished on 2. 12. 2004 by the Staff of encroachment and Demolition squad. However, again the unauthorised hutments were constructed on the said land which were demolished again on 17. 1. 2005. The detenu had constructed unauthorised hutments on government land so also, he was provoking others to construct unauthorised hutments on the said vacant government land. Hence, complaint came to be filed against the detenu. "

( 4 ) BESIDES the above C. R. , the order of detention is based on four incidents which have been stated by incamera witnesses A to D. We do not think it necessary to go into the details of the said CR or the incidents referred to by the incamera witnesses in order to decide the present petition suffice to say that the incamera witnesses have stated about the activities of the petitioner which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. Tripathi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner-detenu and Mrs. Pai the learned a. P. P. for the State. Although, in this petition, many grounds have been pleaded, Mr. Tripathi has pressed only three grounds i. e. ground Nos. B, D and I. . Ground No. B reads as under:. "b. The Petitioner says and submits that five copies of the representations of detenu were forwarded to the Honble advisory Board and the State Government through the Thane Central Prison, Thane on 7. 7. 2005 also addressed to the State government for revocation of the order of detention. The Petitioner received a communication dated 17. 08. 2005 informing him that the said representation of the petitioner is rejected, thereby the state Government has delayed in considering the representation of the detenu. The State Government also did not consider the representation of the detenu independently and expeditiously. The said authority is called upon to explain the above said delay to the satisfaction of this Honourable Court failing which the continued detention will be held illegal and unconstitutional. The concerned Jail authority did not forward the copies of representation to other authority. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, ought to be quashed and set aside.

( 6 ) MR. TRIPATHI submitted that five copies of the representation were handed over to the jail authorities on 7. 7. 2005 by the learned Advocate for the detenu. The said representations were addressed to the State Government and the Advisory board. Mr. Tripathi submitted that though three copies of the representations were addressed to the advisory Board, the same were not sent by jail authorities to the Advisory Board and consequently, non-consideration of the same by the Advisory Board would make the continued detention illegal.

( 7 ) AS far as the copy of the representation being forwarded to the State Government, there is no grievance made by Mr. Tripathi before us that the said representation was not expeditiously considered. His only grievance is that copy of the representation was not forwarded by the jail authorities to the Advisory Board.

( 8 ) THE above ground has been replied by the jailor mr. Sheshrao B. Chawre in par