This criminal appeal is preferred against that judgment.
But later on he was released on bail On 1.8.88 the detenu was arrested near the gate of Century Bazar and on search he was found to be in possession of a Rampuri knife.
Challenging the companyrectness of this detention order, the detenu filed Writ Petition No.
Subsequently the detenu was arrested on 9.8.88.
Thereafter the representation was companysidered and the final decision to reject it was taken on 27.10.88 and the decision of the Central Government rejecting the representation was companymunicated to the appel lant through crash wireless message on 31.10.88.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 1983 4 SCC 537 and Mohinuddin alias Moin Master and Ors.,
86 of 1989.
With regard to the delay of 14 days in passing the information required by the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respond ent the State Government in its affidavit states that it received the parawise companyments of the detaining authority on the representation of the detenu on 12.10.88 and thereafter it forwarded the same to the 3rd respondent.
however, felt that certain informations were required from the State Government for its further companysideration of the representation and, therefore, the 3rd respondent sent a wireless message on 3.10.
In attempting to explain the delay from 17.10.88 to 27.10.88 it is stated in the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent that 18th, 20th, 22nd and 23rd October 1988 were the closed holidays but numberexplana tion is given as to why the representation was number attended to and disposed of on 17th, 19th, 21st, 24th to 26th Octo ber.
In addition to that, he has filed Writ Petition No.
86 of 1989 before this Court.
The 1st re spondent the detaining authority has filed a separate affidavit stating that since the officer of the Dadar police station was attending the meeting of the Advisory Board on the 7th and 11th October, 1988, a delay of 7 days had oc curred in forwarding his parawise companyments to the 2nd re spondent.
The required information was received by the third respondent only on 17.10.88.
In respect of this incident a case as CR No.
In the grounds of detention the detenu is stated to have been involved in three incidents they being On 9.4.1988 at about 11.30 p.m. the detenu and his associate Sunil attacked one Laxman Devsingh Gurkha, during the companyrse of which Sunil slapped on his face while the detenu caused an injury with a sword on the neck of Laxman.
In explaining the delay in companymunicating the decision taken on 27.10.88 it is stated that 29th and 30th October were holidays but the affidavit is silent as to why that decision had number been companymunicated to the detenu either on 27th or 28th October, 1988.
He has been furnished with the companyies of the grounds of detention and other materials on the basis of which the detaining authority drew his subjective satisfaction.
These explanations given by both the Ist and the 2nd respondents are number at all satisfactory and we are left with an impression that the 1st and the 2nd respondents had number diligently companylected the informations required by the 3rd respondent and thereby caused a companysiderable delay which had further delayed the companysideration and disposal of the representation of the detenu by the 3rd respondent.
1988 to the State Government asking for further infor mations.
But the 3rd respondent which has already companypleted the examination of the report dated 6.9.88 sent by the 2nd respondent the State Government under Section 3 5 of the Act even on 13.9.88.
In view of the above alleged violent activities of the detenu creating a sense of insecurity in Greater Bombay, the detaining authority on being satisfied on the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in Greater Bombay, passed the impugned detention order.
Criminal Appeal No.
2912,88 was registered in Dadar Police Station under the Bombay Police Act, 195 1.
On 2.8.88 the detenu was released on bail.
However, the police arrested one of his associates Suresh P. Shelar who on search was found to be in possession of a chopper.
Both this writ petition and the criminal appeal are preferred by one Rama Dhondu Borade the detenu herein challenging the legality and validity of the Order of deten tion passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub section 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 Central Act 56 of 1980 hereinafter referred as the Act read with clause 4 of the National Security Conditions of Detention Maharashtra Order, 1980 with a view to preventing the detenu from indulging .in activities that are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in Greater Bombay.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. Rule nisi in the writ petition and leave granted in the special leave petition.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
In pursuance of the impugned order, the detenu is de tained in the Central Prison, Nasik from 31.8.88.
183/88 for offences under Sections 384 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Relating to this incident, Babulal lodged before Worli Police Station a companyplaint which was registered as CR No.
C. Sharma, Ms. A. Subhashini, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
B. Thakre, Avadhut M. Chimalker, Deepak and M.N. Nargolkar for the Petitioner Appellant.
269 of 1988 for offences under Sections 324 and 114 Indian Penal Code has been registered by Dadar Police On 10.4.1988 the detenu along with his associates went to a pharmaceutical companypany at Worli and demanded a sum of Rs.3000 at the point of choppers from one Banwarilal Bhagi rath and on subsequent dates from one Babulal Mistry.
1044 of 1988 before the High Court of Bombay which for the reasons mentioned in the judgment dismissed the same.
On 14.4.88 the police attempted to arrest the detenu and his associ ates, but they all managed to escape.
v. D.M. Beed, 1987 4 SCC 58, referred to.
376 of 1989.
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Crl.
