- (1.) State of Maharashtra in this appeal questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court quashing order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in purported exercise of powers under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (Bootleggers, Slumlords and Drug Offenders) Act, 1981 (in short "the Act"). The High Court quashed the order only on the ground that there was violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the fundamental rights protected under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "the Constitution"). The order of detention was passed on the ground that detention of respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "detenu") was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Order of detention was passed on 20-2-1997. Along with detention order detenu was served with grounds of detention and other relevant documents on 21-2-1997. Pursuant to the said mittimus, the detenu was lodged in the Nasik Road Central Prison. The order of detention was challenged before the High Court on several grounds. The major ground of challenge was that the detenu was not granted opportunity of producing witnesses before the Advisory Board to prove his innocence, though a representation was made in this regard on 1-3-1997. The Advisory Board approved the detention. The High Court was of the view it was not necessary to deal with the other aspects, and only on the ground that the detenu was denied opportunity to produce witnesses quashed the order of detention.
(2.) The High Court was of the view that since there was no material to show that Advisory Board had enquired from the detenu whether his witnesses were present, opportunity of examining witnesses when he was interviewed by the Advisory Committee on 5th April, 1997 was denied.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. The Secretary to the Advisory Committee had filed an affidavit before the High Court which clearly stated as follows : "The detenu did not produce any witness for examination and did not state before the Advisory Board that he wanted to examine witnesses.";