[PER A.S. CHANDURKAR,J.]

1. The short issue that arises for consideration in this Criminal Writ Petition is whether the delay in deciding the representation made by the petitioner against the order of detention passed under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as, “the MPD Act”, for short), vitiates the same.

2. The respondent No.2 – The District Magistrate, Jalgaon passed an order dated 21.4.2014 under provisions of Section 3(2) of the MPD Act detaining the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the MPD Act. On being served with the aforesaid order of detention, the petitioner made a representation dated 8.5.2014 that was received by the State Government on 9.5.2014. The present Writ Petition has been filed on 8.5.2014 challenging the aforesaid order of detention on various grounds including sufficiency of material for passing the order of detention, absence of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, release of the petitioner on bail in various offences referred to in the detention order etc.. It is also the case of the petitioner that there has been undue delay in deciding the representation made by the petitioner against the aforesaid order.

3. On 8.5.2014, Rule was issued in the present Writ Petition making the same returnable on 10.6.2014. In support of the order of detention, the respondent No.2 has filed affidavit dated 17.6.2014. The order of detention is sought to be justified by stating that the same was passed after considering the entire material on record and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction as contemplated. It is further stated that the parawise comments of the detaining authority were called for by the State Government by letter dated 9.5.2014, which were received by the said Authority on 17.5.2014. It is stated in paragraph14 of the said affidavit that the parawise remarks were sent by the said Authority to the State Government on 4.6.2014.

4. Shri Bajarang Digambar Umate, Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai has filed an affidavit dated 19.6.2014 and with regard to the ground as urged by the petitioner pertaining to the delay in deciding the representation, in paragraph 2 it has been stated thus :

“2. With reference to Paragraph No.4(x) of the Petition, it is stated that the Representation of the Detenu dt. 08.05.2014 was received in the MPDA desk on 09.05.2014 through Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik vide letter dated 08.05.2014. The remarks were called from Detaining Authority i.e. District Magistrate, Jalgaon vide letter dated 09.05.2014. The remarks of District Magistrate, Jalgaon were received in this desk on 06.06.2014 vide letter dated 04.06.2014. The Assistant submitted the File to the Under Secretary on 06.06.2014. The Under Secretary endorsed it on 07.06.2014 and forwarded it to Deputy Secretary on the same day. The Deputy Secretary endorsed it on 09.06.2014 and forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) on same day. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) considered the representation on 11.06.2014 and rejected it. The file received in Desk on 12.06.2014 and the rejection of representation was communicated to the detenu by the State Government vide letter dt 12.06.2014. Thus the representation of the detenu was considered by the State Government as expeditiously as possible. Hence, the contention of the petitioner raised in this paragraph is not true.”

5. Mrs. A.M.Z. Ansari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order of detention dated 21.4.2014 was vitiated on various grounds. It was submitted that there was no material on record to justify the order of detention. The Detaining Authority did not arrive at its subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention. The fact that the petitioner had been released on bail i