JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner detenu has impugned the detention order dated 30th June, 1998 passed by the 1st respondent, Mr. R.H. Mendonca, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai, 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 (No. IV of 1981) (Amendment-1996). 2. The detention order along with the grounds of detention also dated 30th June, 1998 was served on the petitioner detenu on 4-7-1998. Since the solitary ground pressed by Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, to challenge the impugned detention order is a purely legal one, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu contained in the grounds of detention. 3. The legal ground on which, in the contention of Mr. U.N. Tripathi, the continued detention of the petitioner detenu in furtherance of the impugned detention order is rendered bad is pleaded as ground No. 8-F. In short, the said ground reads that on 7-10-1998 a representation was forwarded to Mr. Gopinath Munde. Deputy Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra, for consideration and revocation of the impugned detention order and the petitioner-detenue has not received any communication from the Government regarding its decision taken by it on the said representation. Hence the detention is bad in law. 4. We have examined the said ground and are constrained to observe that it is without substance, both on technicalities as also on merits. We first propose considering as to why the said ground is not technically sustainable. Mr. U.N. Tripathi frankly stated that the representation dated 7-10-1998 was preferred by the father of the petitioner detenu to Mr. Gopinath Munde, Deputy Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra. It is pertinent to point out that in paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention the detaining authority has communicated to the petitioner detenu that he had the right to make a representation at the earliest opportunity to the State Government which he should address to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, (Preventive Detention), Home Department (Special) Mantralaya. Mumbai 400032 and submit through the Superintendent of the Jail, where he had been detained. 4A. Mumbai 400032 and submit through the Superintendent of the Jail, where he had been detained. 4A. A perusal of paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention would show that the representation had to be addressed to the State Government through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Preventive Detention), Home Department (Special) Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 and the father of the detenu had no legal right to make a representation to Mr. Gopinath Munde, Deputy Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra. 5. In our view, Mr. Gopinath Munde, Deputy Chief Minister, Government of Maharashtra, was under no legal obligation to consider, dispose of, and to communicate to the petitioner detenu the fate of the representation made by his father dated 7-10-1998. 6. We would be failing in our fairness if we do not refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Crimes 1987(3) Page 1, (Mohinuddin @ Moin Master, appellant v. The District Magistrate, Beed and others, respondents)1, cited by Mr. Tripathi to press home his submission that even if a representation is addressed to a wrong authority, the proper authority is not relieved of its obligation to consider the same. 7. We have gone through the said decision and in our view the ratio sought to be canvassed by Mr. Tripathi is not the one laid down in it. The ratio laid down in the said authority is that it was not required to be specifically pleaded in the petition that there was an unexplained and unreasonable delay in the representation made by the appellant to the Chief Minister. A perusal of paragraph 3 of the said authority would show that therein the representation was addressed to the Chief Minister, to whom it should have been addressed. 8. In the instant case a perusal of paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention would show that the representation was to be made to the State Government through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Preventive Detention), Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 9. For the said reasons, in our view, the said authority has no application. Mr. Tripathi also placed reliance on two other decisions of the Supreme Court :- (1) 1998(5) S.C.C. 510 (Mrs. Venmathi Selvam-appellant v. State of T.N. and another... respondent)2, and (2) 1993 Supreme Court Cases 341 (Rumana Begum .. appellant v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another .. For the said reasons, in our view, the said authority has no application. Mr. Tripathi also placed reliance on two other decisions of the Supreme Court :- (1) 1998(5) S.C.C. 510 (Mrs. Venmathi Selvam-appellant v. State of T.N. and another... respondent)2, and (2) 1993 Supreme Court Cases 341 (Rumana Begum .. appellant v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another .. respondents)3, to press home his submission that even if a representation is made to a wrong authority the right authority is not relieved of its obligation to dispose of the same and to communicate to the detenu, at the earliest opportunity, the result of such a disposal. We have gone through the said decisions and are constrained to observe that the said ratio has not been laid down in them. We may also mention that in these authorities, as also in Mohinudin @ Moin Master .. appellant v. The District Magistrate, Beed and others ... respondents (supra) unlike the present case where the representation was made by the father of the petitioner-detenu, the representation was made by the detenu himself. 10. We feel it pertinent to mention that in a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 10th March, 1999 rendered in Criminal Writ Petition No. 565 of 1998, (Smt. Vinaya Manohar Madhavi v. Shri O.P. Bali, Commissioner of Police, Thane others)4, to which one of us (Sahai, J.,) was party, a similar point was urged by Mr. U.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the said decision would show that the point pleaded was that on account of the wrong address of the Chairman, Advisory Board, furnished to the detenu, the representation dated 4th April, 1998 sent by the petitioner (wife of the detenu) did not reach the Advisory Board before its meeting on 24th August, 1998. A perusal of the said decision would show that in paragraph 9 of the grounds of detention, it was stated that if the detenu so wished, he could make a representation to the Advisory Board against the detention order and address it to the Chairman, Advisory Board c/o Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side Annexe Bldg., 3rd floor, Mumbai 32. A perusal of the said decision would show that in paragraph 9 of the grounds of detention, it was stated that if the detenu so wished, he could make a representation to the Advisory Board against the detention order and address it to the Chairman, Advisory Board c/o Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side Annexe Bldg., 3rd floor, Mumbai 32. A perusal of the said decision would also show that although the detenu addressed the said representation to the said authority on the above mentioned address but on the covering letter addressed it to the Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Annexe Building, Third Floor, Mumbai 400 032. This Court repelled the said ground and observed in paragraph 7. ".... it was a mistake on the part of the petitioner not to have addressed the representation of the detenu to the Chairman, Advisory Board C/o Registrar, High Court Appellate Side, Annexe Bldg. 3rd floor, Mumbai 32. If on account of the mistake committed by the petitioner, the representation of the detenu made to the Chairman, Advisory Board was not considered by the Advisory Board on 24-4-1998, it is the petitioner who is to be blamed squarely. It is a trite that law does not allow a person to take advantage of his/her own wrong." 11. In our view the ratio laid down in Smt. Vinaya Manohar Madhavi's case (supra) squarely applies to the present case. For the said reasons we do not find any merit in the aforesaid solitary ground pressed by Mr. Tripathi. 12. We make no bones in observing that since a true copy of this representation was annexed as Exhibit E to the petition we perused it and reached the conclusion that in all probability, it was not drafted by a layman, like the father of petitioner-detenu, but by a person having a thorough knowledge of preventive detention laws. This is borne out by the averments contained in it. They are of a highly technical nature and would provoke the envy of even the best of legal minds. In our judgment, before drafting it the grounds of detention have been perused. We feel that purposely the representation had been addressed and sent to Mr. Gopinath Munde, Deputy Chief Minister, Maharashtra, so that a confusion was created at the level of the State Government, resulting in either the State Government not considering it at all or belatedly disposing it of. We feel that purposely the representation had been addressed and sent to Mr. Gopinath Munde, Deputy Chief Minister, Maharashtra, so that a confusion was created at the level of the State Government, resulting in either the State Government not considering it at all or belatedly disposing it of. 13. Technicalities apart, on merits we also do not find any substance in ground 8-F pleaded in the petition. Ground 8-F has been replied to in paragraph 3 of the return of M.B. Khopkar, Desk Officer, Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. In the said paragraph Mr. Khopkar has stated that the representation dated Nil of Mohd. Illiyas Zahur Dhangire (the father of the detenu) on behalf of the detenu addressed to the Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister (Home), Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 was received in the department on 8-12-98 and despite the clear appraisal to the detenu regarding the authorities to which the representation was to be addressed and their exact addresses, the said representation was forwarded with mischievous and mala fide intention directly to the office of the Deputy Chief Minister. It has been further averred in paragraph 3 that the said representation was scrutinized and processed through the Desk Officer to the Joint Secretary for his consideration on 9-12-98. On 10-12-98 the Joint Secretary considered all the papers and forwarded it to the Principal Secretary (Preventive Detention) for his consideration who on the same day considered it and forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), who in turn considered and rejected it on 11-12-98, having been empowered to do so under the Rules of Business of Government of Maharashtra. It has also been stated in paragraph 3 that since 12-12-98 and 13-12-98 were holidays, the detenu's father, who had preferred the said representation was apprised of its rejection on 14-12-98. 13A. In our view a perusal of paragraph 13 would show that there was no delay in the disposal of the representation and its result being apprised to the father of the detenu. 14. Thus both on technicalities as also on merits, we find ground 8-F to be devoid of substance. We would candidly like to mention that although in the writ petition, Mr. Tripathi pleaded a large number of other grounds but since he has not pressed them, we have not adjudicated upon them. 15. 14. Thus both on technicalities as also on merits, we find ground 8-F to be devoid of substance. We would candidly like to mention that although in the writ petition, Mr. Tripathi pleaded a large number of other grounds but since he has not pressed them, we have not adjudicated upon them. 15. In the result, we dismiss the writ petition and discharge the rule. Certified copy of our judgment to be issued to Counsel for the petitioner by tomorrow on payment of necessary charges. Petition dismissed. -----