Smt. RANJANA DESAI, J.:- The petitioner is detained under the of detention dated 8-5-2006 issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short, "the said Act"). The order of detention is issued by respondent 1 the Commissioner of Police, Thane, with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention along with the grounds of detention and the material in support thereof was served on the petitioner on 13-5-2006 and the petitioner was detained. In this petition there is a challenge to the said order of detention.

2. The order of detention rests on one C.R. being C.R. No.1-50 of 2006 registered under sections 452, 323, 504(II), 427 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") at U1hasnagar Police Station. In connection with this case, the petitioner was arrested on 14-3-2006. He was ordered to be released on bail on 15-3-2006. He availed of the bail facility on the same day. The detention order also rests on two in-camera statements.

The in-camera statements of witnesses "A" and "B" were recorded on 10-3-2006. In his statement, witness "A" has stated about an incident which had taken place on 4-3-2006 in which the petitioner is involved. In his statement, witness "B" has deposed about an incident which had taken place on 5-3-2006 in which the petitioner is involved. The incidents at alleged in the grounds of detention indicate that the petitioner is indulging in extortion activities at On the basis of the said incidents and the Sc material in support thereof, the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner has become a menace to the society and his activities have unleashed a waive of terror in the area. He was further satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public e order, it is necessary to detain him. Hence, he issued the impugned order of detention.

3. We have heard Mr. Tripathi, the t learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Tripathi assailed the impugned order only on one ground. He submitted that the detenu had addressed a representation dated 5-6-2006 to the State Government through his lawyer. In that representation, the detenu has also made a request for supply of certain documents. The said representation was rejected by the State Government on 17-6-2006. However, the rejection reply was communicated to the petitioner's advocate on 28-6-2006. The learned counsel urged that there is no acceptable explanation for delay in communication and, hence, the impugned order of detention deserves to be set aside.

4. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this court in Criminal Writ Petition No.295 of 2005 (Parveen Iqbal Mandai Vs. M. N. Roy & Ors.) (since reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 92) decided by the Division Bench of this court (S. B. Mhase and S. R. Sathe, JJ.) dated 16-8-2005. The learned counsel urged that it is open to the detenu to make a representation combining two prayers. He can request for revocation of detention order and he can also pray for supply of documents. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Smt. Shalini Soni Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 431 and Kubic Darusz Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1990)1 SCC 568.

5. We have also heard Ms. Pai, the learned A.P.P. for the State. She drew our attention to the affidavit of Mr. D. Sivanandhan, the Commissioner of Police, Thane and the affidavit of Mr. W.H. Bansode, the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner had requested for supply of documents. Therefore, though his representation was rejected on 17-6-2006, the communication was sent on 20-6-2006 after examining his requ