V.K. Tahilramani, J.@mdashThrough this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the detention order dated 19.2.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihanmumbai detaining the detenue Shri Rajesh Subayya Shetty under Sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Act, 1981. The petitioner is the sister of the present detenue.
2. The detention order alongwith grounds of detention also dated 19.2.2002 was served on the detenue on 21.2.2002.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Although in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded eight grounds for assailing the impugned order of detention numbered as grounds 7(A) to 7(H), but since in our view, this petition deserves to be allowed on ground No. 7(B), we are neither adverting to the other grounds on which the impugned detention order is challenged nor to the prejudicial activities of the detenue contained in the grounds of detention.
4. Ground No. 7B in short is that in the Kannada translation of the grounds of detention supplied to the detenue, the detenue has not been apprised that he had a right to make a representation to the State Government. It has been averred in the said ground that as a consequence of this, the detenue lost the opportunity of making a representation to the State Government at the earliest opportunity. The submission on this ground are twofold. The first submission is that the word representation has been wrongly translated as application. Therefore, the right of the detenue under Article 22(5) of the Constitution was affected. However, in our opinion, even if the word representation is translated as application, petition or any other similar word, it would not make any difference as ultimately the object is to inform the detenue that he has a right to set out his grounds of grievance against the grounds of detention before the appropriate authority and seek relief. This object is achieved even if the word application is used. Thus, there, is no merit in this submission.
5. The second submission on the basis of this ground is that the detenue was not informed of his right to make a representation to the State Government. To fortify his submission, the learned Counsel placed reliance on para 14 of the judgment reported in
"The right to make a representation carries within it a corresponding obligation on the authority making the order of detention to inform the person detained of his right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authorities who are required to consider such a representation."
6. The relevant part of the translation pertaining to para 8 of the grounds of detention reads as under:-
"You are further informed that you can make an application to the State Government against the detention order and you shall be afforded the earliest opportunity to make an application."
It is pertinent to note that in the said translation the crucial word right in respect of making a representation is missing. Thus, it is clear that the detenue has not been informed of his right to make a representation to the State Government.
7. A right is clearly conferred in the second part of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India on the detenue to make a representation, there is a corresponding duty cast on the authority to make the detenue aware of his right by informing him about the said right. It is for this reason that in every grounds of detention, a formal and stereotype para is inserted, and the detenue is informed that he has a right to make a representation to the various authorities named therein. This is not an empty formality but is held to be an obligation which necessarily flows from the right enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Since, in our view in the Kannada translation of the grounds of detention served on the detenue, it was not conveyed to the detenue that he had a right to make a representation to the State Government the detenue was deprived of his fundamental right of making a representation to the State Government at the earliest opportunity.
8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is quashed and set aside. The detenue is directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case.
9. Rule is made absolute.
