A.P.SHAH,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition filed by the detenu Haribhau Kashinath Londhe under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 6th January, 1997 passed by the first respondent viz. Commissioner of Police, Mumbai in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 ("Act" for short) with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The circumstances under which the impugned order was issued and the material on the basis of which the detaining authority drew his subjective satisfaction are well set out in the grounds of detention. We feel that the entire facts are not required to be stated as we are now inclined to dispose of this matter on a short ground viz. whether there was an unreasonable delay in issuing the order of detention from the date of last prejudicial activity throwing considerable doubt on the evidence of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as regards the necessity to detain the petitioner.
(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the petitioner have been detailed in grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner on 6th January, 1997. It is stated that the petitioner has encroached upon certain government land at Malwani, Malad (West), Mumbai. It is stated that after encroaching upon the government land, the petitioner has sold small plots of land and/or huts to needy persons after taking from them large amounts ranging between Rs.4,000/- to Rs 6,000/-. It is further stated that the petitioner is a person of violent character and the petitioner and his associates are always moving about armed with deadly weapons such as bamboo stick, knife, chopper, sword and iron rod etc. It is also stated that the petitioner and his associates have unleashed a reign of terror in the localities of Akashwani hutments, Ambojwadi, Azad Nagar, Malwani, Malad (West) and areas adjoining thereto. It is stated that as the witnesses were not coming forward to depose openly against the petitioner and his associates, confidential enquiries were made wherein they were given assurance that secrecy would be maintained regarding their identity particulars and that they would not be called upon to depose against the petitioner in the Court or any other open forum and statements of eight such persons have been recorded "In-Camera". In fact the detention order is mainly based upon the "In-Camera" statements of the said persons who have deposed against the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner. These "In-Camera" statements have been recorded in the month of May/June, 1996. The order of detention has been made on 6th January, 1997. The main submission canvassed by Mr. Sutrale, learned Counsel for the petitioner, before us is that the inordinate and unreasonable delay in issuance of the detention order has snapped the live link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the proposed preventive detention. The submission is based on ground (c) at page 6 of the petition. It is stated in ground (c) that there is gross delay in passing the impugned order of detention which has not been explained. The alleged camera statements were recorded between 24th May, 1996 and 30th May, 1996. The Surveyor along with police visited the place and drew panchanama on 11th July, 1996. Yet the impugned order of detention is passed on 6th January, 1997. Hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) THE aforesaid ground stated in the preceding para has been replied in paragraph 12 of the reply affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police. It will be useful to reproduce paragraph 12 which reads as follows: "With reference to paragraph Nos.4(c) and (g) of the petition, I say that the Senior Inspector of Police, Malwani Police Station submitted the proposal for detention against the detenu on 14/06/1996 to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malad Division. The A.C.P., Malad Division put up the said proposal before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, who had recommended the same on 27/06/1996 and forwarded the papers to the Additional Commissioner of Police (North-West Region), who in his turn had recommended the proposal on 01/07/1996. Thereafter, the said proposal and relevant papers were sent to the P.C.B., C.I.D. and the same were placed before the Selection Grade Police Prosecutor (P) for his opinion on 11/09/1996. The Selection Grade Police Prosecutor (P) had given his opinion that it was a fit case for detention on 19/09/1996 and marked the papers back to the P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai. Thereafter the said papers were placed before the Assistant Commissioner of Police (H.Q.) C.B.(P) on 20/09/1996. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (H.Q.) C.B.(P) placed the said proposal and papers before Deputy Commissioner of Police (P) on 20/09/1996. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (P) had raised a query and marked the said papers back to Assistant Commissioner of Police (H.Q.) (P) on 21/09/1996. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (H.Q.) (P) had marked the papers back to Senior Inspector of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai for further action on the same day. Thereafter, the Senior Inspector of Police, P.C.B., C.I.D., discussed the matter with Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.B.(P) on 23/09/1996 when the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.B.(P) pointed out certain shortcomings and asked for modification thereof. The Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), therefore, directed that the papers be sent back to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, for modification on 25/09/1996. After modifications were carried out the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X marked the papers to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 04/10/1996 who in his turn marked the same to Deputy Commissioner of Police (P) on the 10/10/1996. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (H.Q.) (P) sent the papers to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (H.Q.) on 10/10/1996 and thereafter as per endorsement of Assistant Commissioner of Police (H.Q.)(P) the papers were once again examined by the office of the P.C.B., C.I.D., Mumbai to verify whether the modification had been carried out. Thereafter, on 14/10/1996 the said proposal and all the relevant papers were once again placed before the Assistant Commissioner of Police (H.Q.) (P), who forwarded the same to Deputy Commissioner of Police (P) on the same day. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (P) examined the said papers and made an endorsement that the necessary modifications had been carried out and, thereafter marked the papers to the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) on the same day i.e. 14/10/1996. The Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime), thereafter, processed the said papers and submitted the same to Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 15/10/1996. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) recommended the said proposal on 17/10/1996 and forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai (the then Detaining Authority) on the same day. The Commissioner of Police, after careful consideration, approved the said proposal on 19/10/1996. Thereafter, translation of all the relevant papers were got made in Marathi language, which was known to the detenu, and the same were placed before the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) on 31/12/1996. The Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) put up the said papers before the Commissioner of Police on 01/01/1997. The Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai once again carefully considered the said proposal, perused the relevant documents and issued the order of detention and forwarded the Grounds of Detention contemporaneously on 06/01/1997. In the circumstances, I submit that the Order of Detention was issued as expeditiously as possible,and that there was no inordinate delay in respect thereof. I further submit that from the material placed before the Detaining Authority it is clear that there was a nexus between the prejudicial activities of the detenu and the need to pass the order of detention. The Detaining Authority had issued the Order of Detention on the reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the detenu. The Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied in respect of the potentiality and propensity of the detenu to commit prejudicial activities in future, which was based on material which had rational probative value. I, therefore, deny that the Order of Detention is liable to be quashed or set aside as alleged." ;