Bombay High Court
Shri Mohd. Zishan Sultan, Ahmed Shaikh, ... vs Shri M.N. Singh, Commissioner Of ... on 3 April, 2002
Author: S.K. Shah
Bench: D.G. Deshpande, S.K. Shah
JUDGMENT S.K. Shah, J.
1.The petitioner-detenu Mohd. Zishan Sultan Ahmed Shaikh has impugned the Order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai. the respondent No.1 detaining him under Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 ( hereinafter referred to as "M.P.D.A. Act").
2.The order of detention was founded on one C.R. namely C.R. No. 205 of 2001 for offence under Sections 452, 506(II), 323, 504 Indian Penal Code registered at Sir J. J. Marg Police Station on the basis of the complaint of Shri Sayyed Khalid Saifulla Sayyed Abdulla and two in-camera statements of witnesses A recorded on 29.11.2001 and B recorded on 30.11.2001.
3.The order of detention is challenged on number of grounds pleaded in the petition, namely, grounds 7(A) to 7 (J). However, the learned counsel Mr. U. N. Tripathi appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pressed before us only two grounds 7(B) and 7(J).
4.We are not adverting to the details of the incidents of the aforesaid C.R. and two in-camera statements, as in our view adverting to them is not necessary for deciding the two grounds, namely 7(B) and 7(J). Perusal of grounds 7(B) and 7(J) would indicate that they are interconnected and therefore we will deal with them simultaneously.
5.Ground 7(B) in short is as under :
The petitioner is a native of State of U.P. and he is Muslim by religion and his mother tongue is Urdu. He has studied upto VIIIth Standard from Anjuman I-Islam High School. He is well conversant in Urdu language only and able to read, write and speak Urdu only. He was not supplied the grounds of detention and other documents in Urdu but was supplied in English language and the translation in Hindi. Not furnishing the order of detention and grounds of detention and other documents of the compilation in Urdu language which was known to the petitioner-detenu has impaired his right of making representation guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore the Order needs to be set aside and quashed.
6.Ground 7(J) in short is as under:
The petitioner-detenu made representation on 18.1.2001 to the State Government through his lawyer for consideration and revocation of the order of detention. In the same representation the petitioner-detenu had also requested for furnishing certain vital documents to the detenu to enable him to make effective representation. The State Government however delayed considering the said representation.
The State Government is called upon to disclose and explain the said delay to the satisfaction of the court in dealing with the representation.
7.The reply to these grounds are contained in paras 8 and 16 of the - return - filed by the respondent No.1. Reply in short is that the detenu was studied up to IXth Standard. In his statement he stated that he is resident of Mumbai since birth and that he is well conversant with Hindi language and therefore he was furnished all documents with translation in Hindi. He had also signed in English language while acknowledging receipt of the documents. The order of detention was served on the detenu on 1.1.2002 and the grounds of detention and the documents were served on 4.1.2002. The detenu had preferred representation dated 21.1.2002 to the Government and in the said representation it was prayed that the order of detention be revoked and set aside and the second prayer was to furnish document in Urdu language in order to enable him to make effective representation. The representation of the detenu was expeditiously considered and rejected by the Government on 24.1.2002 and in the said order dated 24.1.2002 whereby representation was rejected, Advocate of the detenu was asked to make request to the respondent No.1 for getting the documents in Urdu language. Thereafter the second set of the documents in Urdu language was furnished to the detenu. It was denied that the detenu had no workable knowledge of Hindi and English language and his right to make effective representation guaranteed to him under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India was violated.
8.Ground (J) is also replied by the Desk Officer, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, in para 2 of his written, and the reply in short is as under ; The representation of the detenu was received by the Home Department on 21.1.2002. It was scrutinised by the Desk Officer and forwarded to the Deputy Secretary on 22.1.2002. The Secretary (Preventive Detention) considered the same and forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) on 23.1.2002 who carefully considered the representation and rejected the same on the same date i.e. on 23.1.2002. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) duly empowered to do so under the Rules of Business of Government of Maharashtra forwarded the reject reply to the advocate of the detenu on 24.1.2002.
9.We have heard learned counsel Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner-detenu and learned APP Miss. A. R. Kamat for the State. Mr. Tripathi vehemently submitted that the detenu having knowing Urdu language as he has studied in Urdu language. He has also annexed as Annexure D School Leaving Certificate issued by Anjuman-I-Islam High School, to show that the detenu had studied in Urdu medium. He further submitted that merely because the detenu had put signature in English, it cannot be said that he had workable knowledge of English language. In support of this submission he has placed reliance on the decision of apex court in the case of Nainmal Pertap Mal Shah vs. Union of India and others reported In . He also submitted that the second request of the detenu made in his representation was belatedly considered and therefore his detention has become illegal.
10.As against this, Ms. Kamat, learned APP has submitted vehemently that the statement of the detenu was recorded and in the said statement the detenu has clearly stated that he is conversant with Hindi language and had also stated that he was studied upto IXth Std. and he is resident of Mumbai since birth and therefore he requested that the document should be furnished to him in Hindi language. It is therefore that the detenu was furnished the documents in Hindi language. As regards delay in consideringthe representation, she submitted that it was expeditiously considered and so far as the second prayer of the representation was concerned, it came to the knowledge of the respondent only after the reject reply was sent to the detenu on 24.1.2002 and soon thereafter the second set in Urdu language was furnished to the detenu.
11.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned two counsels before us. It is clear from the - return - filed by the respondent No.1 that the detenus statement came to be recorded in which he claimed to be well conversant with Hindi language and also claimed documents in Hindi language. This being the position, now at belated stage if he claims that he knew only Urdu language, the same contention cannot be accepted. It is undisputed that since birth the detenu has been staying in Mumbai. Therefore, although he had taken education in Urdu medium that would not mean that he had no knowledge of Hindi language at all. Moreover, while accepting the documents he had put his signature in English fluently and put an endorsement that he was explained the contents of the documents in Hindu, which he understood. Thus, while receiving the documents he did not make any grievance that he was not knowing Hindi language. On the contrary in the statement he claimed the documents in Hindi language. For these reasons, we do not find any substance in ground 7(B).
12.As regards ground 7 (J) there was no delay in considering his representation with regard to the detention order and the ground of detention. What is tried to be submitted is that there was delay in considering the second prayer of the representation whereby he had claimed the documents in Urdu language. In this also absolutely there was no delay as the prayer came to the knowledge of the respondent No.1 only on 24.1.2002 and soon thereafter second set of Urdu language was submitted. This ground also has no substance as the detenu claimed to be well conversant with Hindi language and also had claimed documents in Hindi language which were accordingly furnished to him along with grounds of detention.
13.No other ground was pressed before us. We find no substance in the grounds 7(B) and 7(J) which were pressed before us. Consequently, we dismiss the Criminal Writ Petition. Rule discharged accordingly. Certified copy expedited.