JUDGMENT :

A.M. Badar, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner/detenu is challenging the order of his detention dated 6th November, 2018 passed by the first respondent under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for the sake of brevity). By the said impugned order passed under Section 3(2) of the said Act, by recording satisfaction that the petitioner is a dangerous person and it is necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the respondent no. 1 had ordered detention of petitioner/detenu Dharani Raja Padyachi.

2. Though Mrs. Ansari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised several legal contentions in order to challenge the order of detention passed by the respondent no. 1 and its subsequent approval by the State, in our view, in the facts of the present case, this criminal writ petition deserves to be allowed only on the ground which we indicate hereinafter.

3. Ground No. (viii) raised by the petitioner/detenu needs to be reproduced for appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to her, there is delay in sending the report to the State Government after passing order of detention of the petitioner. The law mandates that the report should be submitted to the State Government forthwith and there is no plausible explanation for delay in submitting the report to the State, which infact, was received on 14th November, 2018 by the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there is no plausible explanation for delay in not submitting the report forthwith to the State by the respondent no. 1. The ground raised in this regard is found in paragraph (viii), which reads thus:

"(viii) The petitioner says and submits that if the impugned detention has been issued by the detaining U/s. 3(1) of the M.P.D.A. Act than according to Section 3(3) which states as follows:

"3(3) When any order is made under this Section by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government, together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government."

The Petitioner says and submits that according to Section 3(3) of the M.P.D.A. Act the authority making the order of detention other than State Government have to sent report forthwith to the concerned Government which accompanied the ground on which the order has been made. The Petitioner says and submits that according to this Section the life of the order of detention will be only twelve days, unless it has been approved by the concerned State Government.

The Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority should disclose to the State Government as to when such report if any has been send to State Government as in the present case, State Government had approved the impugned detention order on 10th day i.e. on 16.11.2018. The Petitioner says and submits that Petitioner is enable to give date of the said report of detaining authority U/s. 3(2) of M.P.D.A. Act as in the approval order of State Government, it has not mentioned the date of report of the detaining authority. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure "G" is a copy of approval order dated 16.11.2018. The detaining authority should place before the State Government, the relevant contemporaneous record so as to ascertain and verify as to whether the detaining authority has sent the report to the State Government forthwith and on failure of the detaining authority to place before this Hon'ble High Court such record, and a