MONTY BAHADUR KAROTIYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present Petition, Petitioner has challenged his order of detention dtd. 2/2/2022 passed by Respondent No. 1 - Commissioner of Police, Thane City under the provisions of Sec. 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, sand smugglers and persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short "the said Act").

(2.) Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate for Petitioner submitted that though the Petitioner has taken many grounds to challenge detention order, ground (d) is the principal ground of challenge and has drawn our attention to the representation dtd. 8/3/2022 filed by the Petitioner. She submitted that by the said representation, Petitioner had specifically pleaded as under:-

(3.) Thus, it is seen that Petitioner had specifically brought to the notice of the Authority that by letter dtd. 22/10/2021, Police Officer has addressed a letter to the District Medical Officer, Madhyavarti Hospital, Ulhasnagar seeking the medical certificates and details of the injuries as well as comments of the five injured persons in respect of C.R. No. I-347/2021. Ms. Tripathi submitted that this letter and the action taken thereon subsequently has not been taken cognizance of at the time of passing of the order of detention. She has further submitted that at the time of passing of the detention order, there was only one injury certificate pertaining to Laxmi (informant / complainant) available before the Detaining Authority as also given to the Petitioner. That, the injury certificates of the remaining four injured persons namely Ganesh Raju Hadale, Sharada Manoj Behanwal, Gauri Ganesh Hadale and Shruti Raju Hadale were not placed before the Detaining Authority nor copy of the same was furnished to the Petitioner. She has therefore submitted that in view of non-furnishing the vital documents on which the Detaining Authority is to arrive at its subjective satisfaction against the Petitioner amounts to non-communication of grounds of detention and deprivation of a valuable right of the Petitioner to make effective representation under the provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. She has therefore termed the order of detention having been passed without furnishing the relevant vital documents to the Petitioner as well as the Detaining Authority having not examined them and submitted that the impugned order deserved to be quashed and set aside.