VISHNU SAHAI,J. - (1.) THROUGH this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner-detenu, impugns the detention order dated 29th September,1998 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining him under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. IV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).
(2.) THE detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 29th September 1998 was served on the detenu on 6.10.1998. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are enclosed as Annexures "A" and "C" respectively to the petition. We have heard Mr. Prakash L. Shetty for the Petitioner and Mr.S.G.Deshmukh APP for Respondents. Mr.S.G.Deshmukh for Respondents wanted time to file the return of the detaining authority but since rule was issued on 18.1.1999; made returnable within 6 weeks; twice earlier time had been given to the respondents i.e. on 18.6.99 and 29.6.99; and the point involved in this petition is identical to that pleaded in Writ Petition No.63/99 filed by a co-detenu which we have already decided today, we are not inclined to grant him time. Mr.Prakash L.Shetty learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu invited our attention to ground no. 4(a-iii) of the grounds of detention. A perusal of ground 4(a-iii) would show that a case under section 302/34 IPC read with section 3(25) of the Arms Act registered at the Bhoiwada Police Station, vide C.R.No. 67/98 constitutes one of the grounds of detention. Mr.Shetty urged that the post mortem report pertaining to the said C.R.was a vital document. Mr.Shetty invited our attention to ground no.10(xxii) of the writ petition wherein it has been averred that since the petitioner-detenu was supplied with an incomplete translation in Marathi of the post mortem report in C.R.No.67/98, referred to above, he was deprived of his right of making an effective representation as mandated by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, and consequently the impugned detention order is bad. A perusal of the post mortem report in C.R.No.67/98 which is at page 128 to 136 of the petition would show that it is in English and runs into 8 pages.
(3.) WE have already mentioned that no return of the detaining authority has been filed in the instant case and today we rejected the request made on behalf of the respondents to grant further time to file the return of the detaining authority. Although the return of Mr.M.B.Khopkar, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai, has been filed but in the said return no reply has been furnished with respect to ground No.10(xxii). In such a factual matrix the averments contained in ground 10(xxii) have been unrebutted.;