K. J. ROHEE, J.:- Heard.

2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the detention order dated 11-7-2006 passed by Respondent No.2 namely the District Magistrate, Yavatmal.

4. The petitioner is the brother of Swadesh alias Guddu Hanumanprasad Pande, Rio Ghatanji, District Yavatmal (the detenu). On the proposal submitted by the Sponsoring Authority (Respondent No.3) the Detaining Authority (Respondent No.2) issued an order dated 11-7-2006 under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act). In pursuance of the said order the brother of the petitioner was detained on 12-7-2006.

5. The detention order has been challenged on several grounds. Firstly while detaining the petitioner's brother Police Station officer of Police Station, Ghatanji handed over copy of detention order along with the grounds of detention to the petitioner. These documents were not supplied to the detenu. Secondly these documents are in English and its Marathi' translation was provided. However, the detenu does not know English or Marathi and he knows only Hindi language. According to the petitioner the detention order was passed by the Detaining Authority without applying its mind independently, without its subjective satisfaction and mechanically accepted the proposal submitted by the Sponsoring Authority. Thus, it is the outcome of non-application of mind. The period of detention is not specified in the detention order. There is no live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention. There is unreasonable delay between the date of the alleged incident and the date of detention. The incidents referred to by the Detaining Authority are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the detenu would continue to indulge in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Detaining Authority did not apprise the detenu that he has a right to make representation to the Detaining Authority itself, thereby the valuable right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated.

6. The prosecution against the detenu in Crime No. 132/1995 under sections 353, 332 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been withdrawn by the State on 28-10-1999. By judgment dated 30-4-2005 the detenu has been acquitted in Crime No. 3/1996 for the offence punishable under sections 323, 353, 448, 294, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The report on the basis of which Crime No. 104/2004 was registered against the detenu was by way of counter blast. Crime No. 19512005 under sections 353, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Crime No. 49/2006 under section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are based on false complaints. Offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act and the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act have been registered against the detenu only to harass him and that they cannot be taken as ground for detention. It was further contended that the Sponsoring Authority as well as Detaining Authority did not properly verify in camera statements and no reliance could be placed on those statements. Thus the impugned detention order is illegal and it should be quashed and set aside by paying compensation of Rs. 10 Lacs to the detenu for his illegal detention.

7. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed their reply-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner. According to the respondents the detention order is perfectly legal. It was approved by the State Government within the statutory time and was subsequently confirmed by the State. According to the respondents the petition is without any substance and is liable to be dis