Oral Judgment: (A.M. Khanwilkar, J. )

1. This letter petition was received through jail. It has been converted into Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the preventive detention order dated 5th September, 2011 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as `the said Act').

2. Since the petition has been received through jail, we requested Mr.U.N.Tripathi to appear as amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the petitioner as also to assist the Court. We gave him liberty to file formal memo of petition to urge grounds as may be permissible in law to challenge the preventive detention order. The Public Prosecutor was requested to furnish complete compilation of the documents served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention to enable the learned amicus curiae to formulate the grounds of challenge. On the basis of the compilation furnished to the learned amicus curiae, he has filed formal memo of writ petition. We have dispensed with filing of affidavit in support of the said writ petition in the peculiar facts of the present case.

3. The first ground urged before us is essentially on the basis of the compilation of documents furnished to the learned amicus curiae. The compilation of documents includes a brief note on detention which is at pages 14 and 15 of the memo of petition filed by the learned amicus curiae. This document is prepared on 14th September, 2011 by the office of the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai. The learned amicus curiae relied on the confidential communication between Commissioner of Police to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) dated 6th September, 2011 which is placed at page 27 of the memo of petition and argued that going by the dates referred to in the brief note of detention and the said communication, it appears that the order of detention was placed for approval before the State Government on 5th September, 2011. Thus, it was highly impossible for the State Government to accord approval before 5th September, 2011 when the proposal itself was placed before the concerned Authority for approval on 6th September, 2011. As aforesaid, this ground has been taken by the learned amicus curiae on the basis of the document furnished to him. That discrepancy, however, has now been explained in the reply affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police that the said document i.e. brief note on detention was not part of the compilation of documents served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention, but it was prepared after the Government of Maharashtra approved the detention of the petitioner on 14th September, 2011. The fact that the brief note on detention was prepared on 14th September, 2011 is reinforced from the document as below the signature, that date has been mentioned on the document itself. It is noticed from the record that the grounds of detention along with the compilation of documents was served on the detenu on 6th September, 2011, while he was in jail. Therefore, there was no possibility of preparing that document before the date of service of grounds of detention on the detenu on 6th September, 2011. A priori, the ground under consideration deserves to be negatived, as it is founded on miscommunication.

4. The next argument canvassed before us by learned amicus curiae is that although paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention refer to the fact of petitioner having been placed under preventive detention as also order of externment passed in the year 2003 and 2010 respectively, there is nothing in the grounds of detention to indicate that the Detaining Authority was made aware about the outcome of the said proceedings. This argument, though attractive at the first blush, will have to be stated to be rejected. Inasmuch as, the m