( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the continued detention on the ground of failure to consider the representation by the detaining authority.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the detenu and at present lodged at Nashik Road Central Prison at Nashik, consequent to the arrest and detention since 30th March, 2004. The order of detention was passed on 29th March, 2004 in exercise of powers under Section 3 (1) of the maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (hereinafter called as "the MPDA Act" ). The petitioner made representation dated 1 st April, 2004. On 6th April, 2004, the detention of the petitioner was approved by the State government. On 24th April, 2004, the petitioner's Advocate was informed about inability of the detaining authority to consider the representation as the detention was already approved by the State Government prior to receipt of the representation by the detaining authority.

( 3 ) THOUGH the petition was filed challenging the detention on various grounds, the learned Advocate has restricted the challenge to the continued detention with effect from 6th april, 2004 while giving up other grounds of challenge. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the representation of the detenu dated 1 st April, 2004 was duly forwarded to the detaining authority by his lawyer on the same day. However, the same was not considered by the detaining authority and the State Government was allowed to approve the detention of the petitioner by the order dated 6th April, 2004, acting in a breach of the provisions of law comprised under the MPDA Act as well as the article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. It is the contention of the petitioner that it was obligatory for the detaining authority to consider the representation expeditiously and to communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner without waiting for the State government to approve the detention. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the apex Court in the matter of State of maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Santosh Shankar acharya, reported in (2000)7 SCC 463 : [2000 all MR (Cri) 1508 (S. C.)] and Rama dhondu Borade Vs. V. K. Saraf, commissioner of Police and Ors. , reported in air 1989 SC 1861. It was the contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the representation was addressed to the detaining authority as was informed to the detenu in paragraph No. 8 of the Grounds in support of the detention order and it was duly presented in the office of the detaining authority.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the representation made by the Petitioner, though was dated 1st April, 2004, was received in the office of the detaining authority on 12th April, 2004 much after the approval was granted by the State Government to the detention of the petitioner, and therefore, it was not possible for the detaining authority to consider the representation, and it was accordingly informed to the detenu under letter dated 24th April, 2004. Being so, according to the respondents, the continued detention of the petitioner cannot be held to be illegal as there has been no violation of the provisions of the law and much less of the Article 22 (5) of the constitution of India.

( 5 ) THE law on the point that the detenu under the MPDA Act is entitled as a matter of right to make a representation to the detaining authority so long as the order of detention has not been approved by the State government as well as the obligation of the detaining authority to inform the detenu about his right to make such a representation has been well settled consequent to the decision of the apex Court in Santosh Acharya's case (supra ). It was clearly held therein that "it goes without saying that even under the Maharashtra act a detenu will have a right to make a representation to the detaining authority so long as the order of detention has not been ap