S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order of detention dated 17th October, 2017. This order has been passed under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “MPDA Act”).

2. The petitioner has raised several grounds, but in the opening arguments, the petitioner's counsel Mr. Tripathi submitted that the continued detention of the petitioner is vitiated on the amended ground, which has been introduced with the leave of this court. That ground is contained in paragraph 4(I) at pages 10A and 10B of the paper book. It reads as under:-

“4(I) The Petitioner says and submits that a representation of the detenu was submitted to the State Government on 09.02.2018 by his lawyer on his behalf which was handed over to the Home department, Mantrlaya, Mumbai same day. The Petitioner says and submits that one of the Important grounds urged in the said representation is about various as many as 12 documents whose translation in Marathi language was not true and correct. A copy of the said representation is hereto annexed as Exhibit – 'D'. The detenu in his representation has requested the State Government to furnish him correct Marathi translation of grounds of detention as well as other documents to enable him to make effective representation along with other grounds of challenge. A specific written request was made to the detaining authority/State Government to supply these documents at the earliest. So far the said Authority has not considered the representation of the detenu nor has furnished the document requested for. The Petitioner submits that wrong translations were by way of addition, omissions and other ways. The Petitioner is a Maharashtrian and has studied a little in Marathi medium, he is able to read write and understand Marathi language only. The Petitioner has been supplied with wrong translation and other documents and further inspite of specific request demanding true and correct translations of grounds of detention and other documents, the petitioner is deprived from making effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law for non consideration of the representation expeditiously and non supplying the documents requested for. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law liable to be quashed and set aside.”

3. After the amendment was carried out to the petition, the amended memo duly served, we heard both sides. On 15th March, 2018, after hearing both sides, the following order came to be passed:-

“1. During the course of arguments today, Mr. Tripathi, relying upon the amended ground and appearing at page 10A, para 4(I), submitted that Annexure-D is a copy of the representation which was forwarded by the detenu through his Advocate. Copy of that is at pages 25A to 25K of the petition.

2. Mr. Tripathi would submit that at page 25B, ground (b), the detenu, through his Advocate, specifically stated that certain portions of the grounds of detention in Marathi and as set out in this representation are not the true and fair translations of its counterpart English versions. The detenu could not make an effective representation. Hence, a request was made to supply a true and correct translation of the Marathi grounds and other documents as enlisted in this representation.

3. Inviting our attention to the supplemental affidavit in reply of the Detaining Authority at pages 54 and 55 of the paper book, Mr. Tripathi would submit that the ground taken by way of amendment to the petition as also the contents of the subsequent representation at the above said para are not controverted. The reply affidavit proceeds on the footing that the detenu has argu