IMPORTANT POINT
Non-furnishing of vital documents relied upon for passing the detention order amounted to non-communication of the grounds of detention and deprivation of the petitioner's valuable right to make an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.

1) Present Petition mounted a challenge to the detention Order dated 27th September 2023, passed against the Petitioner by the Respondent No.1–Commissioner of Police, Pune under Section 3 (2) 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 (for short “said Act”).

2) Heard Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. M. H. Mhatre, learned APP for the Respondent-State.

2.1) We have perused the Petition, the detention Order, the grounds of passing the detention Order, Affidavits-in-Reply of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, respectively. As per our direction, the learned A.P.P. also produced for our perusal the original file of C.R.No.263 of 2023 registered with Mundhwa police station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 324, 323, 504, 143, 147, 149, and 427 of I.P.C., against the Petitioner and others.

3) Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that, even though the detention Order has been challenged on various grounds, the Petitioner mainly relies upon grounds (d) and (j).

3.1) In ground ‘(d)’ the Petitioner has stated contended that, in the grounds of detention at para 5.1, there is clear reference to the facts that, in the incident related to said Cr.No.263 of 2023, four customers namely Vaibhav Goswami, Drumika Lalwani, Revati Rathod & Rohan Choudhari, present in hotel were injured, they were given Medical Yadi, they were accordingly medically examined at Sassoon Hospital, Pune, they after treatment came to the police station and then their statements were recorded. The statement of the said injured persons, hospital admission documents and their injury certificate/s were vital documents, which ought to have been placed before the Respondent No.1 detaining authority, before issuance of the detention Order and copy thereof should have been given to the petitioner to afford him the earliest opportunity of making an effective representation. However, no injury certificate or statements of said injured persons were placed before the detaining authority nor copy thereof was furnished to the petitioner. Hence, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner is a ‘Dangerous Person’, is defective. Non furnishing of these vital documents amounts to non-communication of grounds of detention and it deprived the Petitioner of making any effective representation. Thus, both facets of Article 22 (5) of the constitution of India are violated. Hence the detention Order is illegal and bad in law.

3.2) In ground ‘(j)’ it is stated that, Petitioner’s representation dated 07th November 2023 was sent to the Respondent No.2-State through the Respondent No.3, whereby the Petitioner sought for revocation of the detention Order in view of ground ‘(d)’ and supplying the aforesaid documents. However, the Petitioner did not get any response in time. For this reason also the Petitioner could not submit an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on this count also the detention Order is liable to be quashed.

4) To buttress the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate has relied upon the following decisions :-

i) Monty Karotiya Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Cri.W.P.No.1849/2022,

ii) Akash A. Mudgal Vs. Comm. Of Police & Ors., Cri.W.P. No.1713/2023,

iii) Ramchandra Kamat Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 270,

iv) Mehrunissa Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 709,

v) Nafisa K. Ghanem Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 422.

5) Per Contra, Ms.Mhatre, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State has invited attention of this Court to the following Affidavits-in-Reply by i) Respondent No.1-Commissioner of Police dated 9th December 2023, ii) Respondent No.2-Deputy Secretary, dated 21st December