JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.
1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes herself as the mother of the detenu Farooq alias Firoz Hasan Bagwan, has impugned the detention order dated 30-11-2000, passed by the 1st respondent-Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, detaining the detenu under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996), hereinafter referred to as "the M.P.D.A. Act").
The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 30-11-2000, was served on the detenu on 5-12-2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures-A and B respectively to this petition.
2. A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that the impugned order is founded on three CRs. One L.A.C. (Local Act Case) and two in camera statements, the details of which are as under :
i) a) C.R. No. 150/2000 under Sections 324, 34, I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint datedl4-3-2000 filed by one Nasruddin Kamaluddin Ansari, at Oshiwara Police Station (referred to in para 5(a)(ii) of the grounds of detention);
ii) L.A.C. No. 770/2000 under Sections 36(1)(a), 22-51 of Mumbai Police Act registered on the basis of a complaint dated 30-3-2000 (referred to in para 5(a)(iv) of the grounds of detention);
iii) C.R. No. 278/2000 under Section 379, I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 4-5-2000 filed by one Manish Suresh Dhuri, at Oshiwara Police Station (referred to in para 5(b)(ii) of the grounds of detention);
iv) C.R. No. 444/2000 under Sections 384, 387, I.P.C. registered on the basis of a complaint dated 17-7-2000 filed by one Shaikh Rafruddin, at Oshiwara Police Station (referred to in para 5(c)(ii) of the grounds of detention);
v) In-camera statement of witness A recorded on 22-7-2000 (referred to in para 5(d)(i); and
vi) In-camera statement of witness B, recorded on 26-7-2000 (referred to in para
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded a large number of grounds but he has only pressed before us one ground viz. Ground No. 7(b). Ground No. 7(b) in short is that in Ground No. 4 of the grounds of detention there is a reference to the earlier detention of the detenu in the year 1998 under M.P.D.A. Act vide D.O. No. 222/PCB/DP/Z-VII/98 dated 8-10-1998 which has been considered by the detaining authority and although a copy of the detention order as well as a copy of the detailed order of earlier detention has been placed before the detaining authority and considered by it, the detaining authority has shown his unawareness that the said detention order was quashed by this Court on 20-7-1999 vide Criminal Writ Petition No. 25/99. It has further been pleaded that this shows non-application of mind of the detaining authority, which has vitiated his subjective satisfaction and rendered the detention order illegal and bad in law, making it liable to be quashed and set aside.
4. Ground 7(b) has been replied to in para 11 of the return of the detaining authority at pages 52 to 76 of the paper book. In the said paragraph the detaining authority has averred that para 4 of the grounds of detention was merely a preamble to the grounds of detention and the grounds of detention are mentioned in para 5. He has also averred therein that all the documents relied upon by him to issue the order of detention have been supplied to the detenu to enable him to make an effective and purposeful representation against the order of detention. He has further averred therein that he was not in any way influenced by the averments contained in para 4 of the grounds of detention and he was aware that the order had been set aside. But since the averments in para 4 were by way of preamble he did not consider it necessary to give all the details of the detention order or the results thereof. He has finally averred that it is denied that there has been non-application of mind on his part, or his subjective satisfaction is vitiated and the impugned detention order has been rendered illegal and bad in law will ought to be quashed.
5. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, to lend force to his submission contained in Ground 7(b) placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 19-12-1990 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1066 of 1990 (Smt. Sashikala w/o Shri Ashok Sanilv. Shri S. V. Bhave) Mr. Tripathi urged that a perusal of para 3 of the said decision would show that the detaining authority had shown his awareness that the detenu had been earlier detained under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act vide D.O. No. 2/PCB/Zone-I/98 dated 8-3-1989 but the detention order which hadbeen chal lenged by the detenu in Criminal Writ Petition No. 749/89 had been quashed by this Court vide its Judgment dated 28th September, 1989 and in the grounds of detention there was no reference to this fact. Mr. Tripathi urged, as is manifest from para 5 of the said decision, that although the detaining authority in his affidavit, as in the instant case, stated that he was aware that the detention order had been set aside but since the said awareness had not been reflected in the grounds of detention the detention order was quashed.
6. On the converse Ms. Aruna Kamat, learned A.P.P. strenuously urged that the earlier detention order referred to in para 4 of the grounds of detention is not a ground of detention and a perusal of para 1 of the grounds of detention makes it manifest that the grounds of detention are contained in para 5. She contented that the earlier detention order was only by way of preamble and merely because in the grounds of detention the detaining authority has not stated that he was aware that it was quashed the said order would not be vitiated on the vice of non-application of mind.
To fortify her submission that para 4 of the grounds of detention is only a preamble, Ms. Aruna Kamat relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1993 Cri LJ 1981 (Prabhakar Menka Shetty v. S. Ramamurthy, Commissioner of Police for Greater Bombay) wherein the Division Bench, after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court, (Dhananjoy Das v. Dist. Magistrate (Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of Jammu and Kashmir), in para 5, took the view that there can be a preamble to the grounds of detention and observed in the said paragraph as under :
...Whether or not a particular portion is only a preamble or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No acid test can be applied. Totality of most of factors such as its nomenclature, placement, contents etc., exhaustive list of which cannot be given - will determine the question. After all the grounds of detention means factual inferences plus the factual material leading to those inferences which form the basis for the subjective satisfaction. When the detaining authority specifies in the grounds of detention the specific factors of the incidents that weighed with him in taking the decision, the said statement in the grounds will have to be accepted normally unless there are cogent reasons to reject that statement.
Ms. Kamat contended that if the ratio laid down in the said decision is applied to the instant case, it would become manifest that the averments contained in para 4 of the grounds of detention, were only a preamble and not a ground of detention, the latter being incorporated in para 5.
7. We have reflected over the rival submissions and are constrained to observe that we do not find any merit in Mr. Tripathi's contention.
We make no bones in observing that Ground No. 7(b) is misconceived inasmuch as it has been stated therein that in Ground No. 4 of the grounds of detention there is a reference to the earlier detention order (D.O. No. 2/PCB/Zone-I/98 dated 8-3-1989) but the fact is that reference to the said detention order is not. in Ground No. 4 of the grounds of detention but in para 4 of the grounds of detention.
There is a world of difference between Ground No. 4 and para 4 of the grounds of detention. As we have seen earlier Ground No. 4 of grounds of detention is C.R. No. 444/2000.
We find merit in Ms. Aruna Kamat's contention that para 1 of the grounds of detenion makes it manifest that the grounds of detention (3 CRs., one L.A.C. and two in-camera statements, referred to earlier) are contained in para 5 and not in para 4
8. Since in our view, the grounds of de-tention are contained in para 5 of the grounds of detention the reply of the detaining authority, to which we have referred to earlier merits acceptance. The said reply is ! contained in para 11 of the return of the detaining authority and is at pages 52 to 76 of the paper book and therein, as mentioned by us earlier, he has stated that para 4 of jthe grounds of detention was only a preamble and the grounds of detention are mentioned in para 5.
9. For the said reasons we do not find any merit in Ground 7(b) and reject the said ground.
10. Before proceeding to the operative part of the Judgment we would like to mention that although apart from Ground 7(b) a number of other grounds have been pleaded in the petition but we have not dealt with them sinceMr. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner hasnot pressed them.
11. In the Result we dismiss this writ petition and discharge the rule.