Both the representations were duly companysidered by the Advisory Board.
The said detenu has submitted two representations dated the 1st March, 1997 and 21st March, 1997 through the Superintendent, Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.
The Advisory Board approved the detention.
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.
The High Court was of the view that since there was numbermaterial 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.
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 .
Order of detention was passed on 20.2.1997.
underlined for emphasis The undisputed position, therefore, is that the detenu did number produce any witness for examination and even did number state before the Advisory Board that he wanted to examine the witness or that the witness was present.
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 number 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 High Court was of the view that it was number 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.
2004 3 SCR 295 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 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 detenu did number produce any witness for examination and did number state before the Advisory Board that he wanted to examine witnesses.
He was heard against the detention order.
Along with detention order detenu was served with grounds of detention and other relevant documents on 21.2.1997.
