B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:- This petition filed under Article 226 read with Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution challenges the detention order dated 31/1012005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ("the MPDA Act" for short) holding that the detenu Shri. Mohamed Salim s/o. Haji Hamja Shaikh @ Kalya Salim is a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(b-l) of the said Act. The petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu. Consequent to the impugned order of detention the detenu was taken in custody on 4/11/2005 and, therefore, the detention period of one year would expire on 3/11/2006.

2. The detention order has been passed by the State Government on 9/11/2005 and it was referred to the Advisory Board on 10/11/2005. The Advisory Board gave its opinion on 7/12/2005 and it was received on the same date by the State Government. Consequently the order was confirmed on 17/12/2005 by the State Government for a period of one year.

3. Though the order has been challenged on as many as seven grounds the following two grounds were mainly advanced before us :

(d) The petitioner says and submits that the two In-camera statements referred to in the grounds of detention and relied on by the Detaining Authority is illegal and unwarranted in view of the fact that they are false, vague and baseless. Moreover, these statements are not verified as per the requirement of law by the A.C.P. who has verified them. There are no cogent material to show that they were really verified. It is, therefore, In-camera statements in this case cannot be relied on for detention of the detenu. The order of detention is illegal and bad-in-law, ought to be quashed and set aside.

(e) The petitioner says and submits that the Detaining Authority has referred to and relied on a criminal case registered against the Detenu vide C.R. No.116/2005 under Sections 326, 114 of IPC and all the documents which are placed before the Detaining Authority. The petitioner says and submits that in the abovesaid C.R. while narrating the incident the Detaining Authority has stated in para 5 of the grounds of detention that the Detenu with a sharp knife has caused cuts on the cheek and left rear side of the neck of Shri. Ravi Pujari whereas the medical certificate which is placed before the Detaining Authority as the documentary evidence does not disclose the same and moreover, the Ld. Magistrate while granting bail also has observed the same. The gross variance between the averments of the Detaining Authority with the injury certificate and bail order clearly shows the total non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority. This shows the casual and cavalier manner of passing the Order of Detention. The Order of Detention is illegal and bad-in-law, ought to be quashed and set aside.

4. Having considered the medical certificate, the proposal submitted to the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority, the complaint in C.R. No.116/2005 for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 114 of IPC as well as the bail order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 9th Court at Bandra, Mumbai on 2nd September 2005, we are of the considered opinion that the second point set out as ground (e) in the petition memo and reproduced hereinabove does not require consideration from us. The alleged deficiency of not mentioning the so called injury on the cheek in the medical certificate would not affect the detention order more so when it is based on one CR and two in-camera statements. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to consider the first point raised before us, challenging the impugned order of detention.

5. The verification made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on both in camera statements on the respective dates (original in Marathi) reads as under:

"He is personally present before me on this day. When his stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document