Arun Namdev More an Indian Inhabitant vs The State of Maharashtra, Joyce Shankaran, The Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Dept., Preventive Detention and Detaining Authority, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032, The Superintendent of Prison, The Mumbai Central Prison, Arthur Road, Mumbai and The Superintendent of Prison, Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik

D.G. Deshpande, J.

1.Heard Mr. Maqsood Khan for the petitioner brother in law of the detenu and the learned APP for the State.

2.Though the detention is challenged by the petitioner on number of grounds, Mr. Maqsood Khan prays only ground No. (viii) which is that rejection reply regarding the representation of the detenu was not communicated to him. He contended that cases of two co-detenus were allowed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1125 of 2001 and 1126 of 2001 by an Order dated 17.10.2001 and since in this case also the rejection reply to the representation of the detenu was not communicated to him, the detenu is entitled for the same relief.

3.So far as this aspect is concerned, learned APP did not dispute that the rejection reply was not communicated to the detenu. However, it was contended that detention order in its entirety cannot be quashed but only continued detention can be even if the petition is allowed. Mr. Maqsood Khan did not dispute this legal position and he also conceded that continued detention can be quashed. In view of this and particularly in view of the orders in the two writ petition, namely, Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1125 of 2001 and 1126 of 2001, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. Continued detention is set aside. Detenu - Dilip Ananda Sapkal be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

4.Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.