Criminal Writ Petition No. 782 of 2002

29th August, 2002

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. U.N. TRIPATHI
Respondent Counsel: Mr. B.R. PATIL

Cases Cited:
Smt. Deepa Ramesh Pai Vs. The Union of India, 1991 Cri L.J. 2387 [Para 4]
Smt.Rashida Saifuddin Indorwala Vs. The State of Maharashtra, WP No 1142 of 1991 Dt 12.12.1991 [Para 4]
Shri Balkrishna & Balya Laxminarayan Soudekar Vs. Shri S.K. Bapat, W.P. 534 of 1993 Dt 10.9.1993 [Para 4]
Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Vs. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 728 [Para 4]
Deepesh Mahesh Zaveri Vs. Union of India, 1997 ALL MR (Cri) 127=1997 V LJ 401 [Para 5]

JUDGMENT

D.G.DESHPANDE :- Heard Mr. Tripathi counsel for the detenu and Mr. B.R. Patil the learned Acting P.P for the State.

2. This is the second petition of the detenu Pravin Bhuramal Jain challenging the detention order dated 4.1.2002. He had filed earlier petition vide Criminal Writ Petition No. 281 of 2002 and it was decided by this Bench on 29.4.2002 and the petition was dismissed.

3. The present petition is filed on three grounds. One of them is that the detention order is punitive in nature and not preventive and other two grounds are as per grounds (D) and (E) about non consideration of the representation of the detenu dated 4.6.2002 (which is actually dated 7.6.2002) and the other representation sent through his advocate on 11.6.2002 by the State Government expeditiously.

4. So far as the first contention of Mr. Tripathi is concerned, preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Patil that second petition on the grounds which were originally available to the detenu is not maintainable. In reply to this objection, Mr. Tripathi relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1991 Cri. L.J. 2387 Smt. Deepa Ramesh Pai vs. The Union of India and others, unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.1142 of 1991 Smt. Rashida Saifuddin Indorwala vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided on 12.12.1991. Unreported judgment in Criminal Writ Petition No.534 of 1993 Shri Balkrishna @ Balya Laxminarayan Soudekar vs. Shri S.K. Bapat & Ors. decided on 10.9.1993 and judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 728 Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India & ors. It was contended by him on the basis of the aforesaid judgments that the detenu has a right to file second petition and successive petition on points which were available to him at the time of first petition but which were not raised and argued.

5. As against this Mr. Patil relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 V LJ 401 : [1997 ALL MR (Cri) 127] Deepesh Mahesh Zaveri vs. Union of India & ors. and contended that the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment has referred to and considered about 37 earlier judgments on the same point and has come to the conclusion that the litigants cannot be permitted to go for forum hunting and therefore after considering the entire case law the Court held that second petition is not maintainable.

6. We have gone through the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Deepesh Mahesh Zaveri and since the Division Bench has elaborately considered this aspect and decided against the detenus about the maintainability of second and successive petitions, there are no reasons for us to adopt any other mode. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Patil has to be upheld and we hold that the second petition or successive petition on the grounds which were available at the time of the first petition is not maintainable.

7. However, the detenu cannot be prevented from urging something which happened subsequent to the decision of the earlier petition. Therefore, we permitted Mr. Tripathi to make his submission regarding the grounds (D) and (E).

8. Grounds (D) and (E) pertain to the representations made by the detenu. One of the representations was made by him on 7.6.2002 and sent to the State Government and another representation was made by him through his lawyer to the State Government on 11.6.2002. The detenu's contention in the aforesaid ground is that till the date of filing of the second petition, the State Government did not decide those representations.

9. As against this, Mr. Patil drew our attention to the affidavit of the State Government, particularly (page 77) wherein the State government has given the correct facts and figures. Both the representations were received by the concerned Desk Officer on 11.6.2002. They were scrutinished and processed on 12.6.2002. They were forwarded to different authorities mentioned in the said affidavit and ultimately The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) considered and rejected the representations on 14.6.2002.

10. Mr. patil therefore contended that if both the representations were received on 11.6.2002, and were decided and rejected on 14.6.2002, then there is no delay at all but to the contrary representations have been expeditiously dealt with. Since the point raised by the detenu in the aforesaid two grounds was non-consideration of the representations expeditiously and since from the affidavit it is clear that the representations were decided within three days,the objections in that regard are required to be rejected.

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Certified copy expedited.

Petition dismissed.