AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[PER SHARMILA S. DESHMUKH, J.]:
The present Petition questions the detention order dated 7th March, 2026 bearing D.O No.04/CB/DP/2026 issued under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Ofenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers, Persons engaged in Black-marketing of Essential Commodities Act, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Traicer Act, 1981 (for short “M.P.D.A Act”) on the ground that the Petitioner is required to be detained in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Though various grounds have been urged in the Petition, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner would conine herself to ground (c) of the Petition. She submits that the representation of the Petitioner dated 20th March, 2026 was sent to the State Government through Yerwada Central Prison which came to be decided on 22nd June, 2026. She would submit that as there has been unexplained delay, the same vitiates the order of detention.
Learned A.P.P would point out the reply of the State which speciically states that the representation was received on 10th June, 2026 by email through Yerwada Central Prison, Pune and thereafter remarks were called for from the Detaining Authority on 11th June, 2026. He submits that the remarks were received on 17th June, 2026 and the Assistant Section Oicer submitted the ile containing remarks of Detaining Authority to the Section Oicer on 17th June, 2026. He submits that as Section oicer was on leave, the Under Secretary endorsed it on 19th June, 2026 and forwarded the same to the Deputy Secretary who forwarded it on the same date to the Additional Chief Secretary. He submits that on 20th June, 2026 and 21st June, 2026 it was holiday being weekend and the Additional Chief Secretary rejected the representation on 22nd June, 2026 and, therefore, the representation of the detenu was considered by the State Government as expeditiously as possible.
We have considered the detention order, the grounds set out in the Petition and Aidavit replies on behalf of the Jail Authority as well as the State Government.
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has conined herself to ground (c) of the Petition, which reads as under:
“The petitioner says and submits that representation of the petitioner dated 20.03.2026 was sent to the State Government through Yerwada Central Prison, as stated in the grounds of detention for expeditious consideration, revoke and communication. The petitioner says and submits that the representation of the petitioner is to be dealt with expeditiously and diligently and communicate the result to the petitioner at the earliest. All respective/concerned authorities are called upon to explain the delay, if any, occurred from (the date of representation till the date when the result of the representation is communicated to the petitioner) to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court failing which the continued detention will be held as illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside”.
The reply of the Jail Authority to ground (c) of the Petition states that the representation dated 20th March, 2026 was received by them on 23rd March, 2026 and signature of the detenu was obtained on the said representation on 23rd March, 2026 which was forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department through email on 23rd March, 2026. Copies of the relevant documents are annexed to the reply of the Jail Authority and perusal of the same would indicate that signature of the detenu was obtained on 23rd March, 2026 by the Jail Authorities and the same came to be forwarded on the very same date to the Additional Chief Secretary.
Reply of the Deputy Secretary, Home Department states that the representation was received on 10th June, 2026 by email which was unsubstantiated and copy of the email has not been placed on record. Reply Aidavit of the Jail Authority would indicate that the representation was forwarded on 23rd March, 2026 to the Additional Chief Secretary and has come to be rejected on 22nd June, 2026. There is no explanation for the delay in deciding the representation which was forwarded on 23rd March, 2026 as is evident from the aidavit of Jail Authority. The detention order, therefore, stands vitiated for the unexplained delay. In case of Somnath alias Prashant alis Bapu Tukaram Bhosle versus District Magistrate, Solapur and others in Criminal Writ Petition No.2473 of 2025, delay of twenty three days was held by this Court to vitiate the detention order relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banti v/s Union of India and others, (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 148. It is held in paragraph 20 as under;
“Reverting to the facts of the present case as submitted by the learned counsel, except merely mentioning that the representation was forwarded to the concerned sponsoring authority on 25.8.1989 and the comments from the sponsoring authority was received by the Department on September, 11, 1989, there is absolutely no explanation as to why such a delay had occurred. Therefore, in the light of the proposition laid down in Rama Dhondu Borade's case (From the Judgment and Order dated July, 5, 1984 of the Gujarat High Court in CRA No.948 of 1984) (albeit), we have no other option except to allow this appeal on the ground that this undue and unexplained delay is in violation of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India rendering the impugned order invalid”.
In the present case, though it is sought to be contended that the representation was received on 10th June, 2026, reply of the Jail Authority is suicient to accept that the representation was forwarded on the same date I.e on 23rd March, 2026 and there is delay of almost three months in deciding the representation for which there is no explanation. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the Writ petition as undue and unexplained delay is in violation of constitutional obligation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India vitiating the detention order.
The Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
The detention order dated 7th March, 2026 bearing D.O No.04/CB/DP/2026 is quashed and set aside. The Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.