IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that discrepancies between language versions of a detention order can violate the right to make an effective representation, rendering the detention illegal.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GAURI GODSE, J. - Heard.

2. This petition is filed to challenge the order of Detention bearing No. Desk-7/Home/Pol/MPDA/SR/02/2022 dtd. 16/12/2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2 - The District Magistrate, Kolhapur, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 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 ('MPDA Act') for detaining the Petitioner's son - Pruthviraj Vilas Aawale.

3. Perusal of the detention order indicates that the offence registered against the detenu on 17/9/2022 being C.R. No. 509 of 2022 registered with Juna Rajwada Police Station as well as the in-camera statements of two witnesses, are relied upon by the detaining authority to pass the order of detention.

4. The petitioner has raised various grounds for challenging the order of detention; however, it is not necessary to consider all the grounds raised by the petitioner, in as much as the Petition ought to succeed only on the ground raised in clause (B) of paragraph 6 of the petition, which reads as under:

<WXY>"B. That there is a gross difference in the English version and Marathi version of 'grounds of detention'. In the English version it is mentioned in para 2 that "Thus to achieve criminal objectives, you have habitually committed offences against the public peace viz. committed offences of the type of murder by using a deadly weapon in a public place". However, this is not mentioned in the Marathi version. The petitioner's son has not committed murder of any person, nor any such offence has ever been registered against him. This clearly shows a complete lack of application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority (henceforth to be referred to as DA for the sake of brevity). This also shows that the DA was misguided by placing before him fabricated papers."</WXY>

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the ground stated by the Detaining Authority for recording satisfaction for issuing the detention Order as per the English version of the detention order and the Marathi version is different. The learned counsel referred to the reasons recorded in paragraph 2 of the detention order and the contents of the Marathi version of the same order. Thus, by comparing the English version as well as the Marathi version of the order, the learned counsel submitted that there is variance in the grounds of detention recorded in the English version of the impugned order and in the Marathi version of the same order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that perusal of the order of detention would show that there is a chart showing various offences registered against the detenu; however, the same is not relied upon by the detaining authority for passing the order of detention. He submitted that the only offence registered against the detenu on 17/9/2022 i.e. C.R. No. 509 of 2022, has been relied upon by the detaining authority. Learned counsel further submitted that there is complete non-application of mind by the detaining authority in passing the detention order.

7. Learned APP has tendered an affidavit dtd. 14/6/2023 of Mr. Rahul Rekhawar, District Magistrate, Kolhapur, on behalf of the detaining authority (Respondent No. 2), as well as an affidavit of Mr. Anil Kulkarni, Joint Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai on behalf of The State of Maharashtra (Respondent No. 1). The affidavits tendered by the learned APP are taken on record. The learned APP, by relying upon the aforesaid affidavits, has supported the order of detention.

8. Learned APP, by relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the Detaining Authority, denied that the relevant documents were not placed before the detaining authority as sought to be contended by the petitioner. The learned APP submitted that the in-camera statements of