JUDGMENT :

N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

1. By this Petition, the petitioner impugns the Detention Order of his son namely Javed @ Sajan Salauddin Ansari (for short “the Detenu”) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nashik dated 24.06.2019, under Section 3 (2) of 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 (for short “the said Act”).

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

3. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP. Perused the grounds raised in the writ petition and annexures thereto and reply filed by the respondent – State.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order on the following grounds:-

“(i) The impugned detention order suffers from the non-application of mind and casual and cavalier exercise of power, and the relevant material consisting 287 pages was placed before the detaining authority on 22.06.2019 and the impugned order is passed on 24.6.2019. Thus, there was no sufficient time for the detaining authority to apply its mind.

(ii) There was delay of 10 months in passing the detention order from the date of registration of first offence i.e. C.R. No.182/2018 which was registered on 06.06.2018. Second incident considered by the detaining authority is dated 02.08.2018 and F.I.R was registered on 03.08.2018. Thereafter, third offence was registered on 05.05.2019 in C.R. No. 193/2019. Thus, if at all the detention order was necessary, it ought to have been passed promptly and not after lapse of period of 10 months from the date of registration of first offence.

(iii) It is further averred that only with a view to filling the gap between the day when the Detenu was released and the day when impugned detention order is passed, the sponsoring authority recorded two in-camera statements on 06.06.2019 and 10.06.2019. Thus, the impugned detention order is passed after lapse of period of 10 months.

(iv). The bail application and the bail order were not placed before detaining authority which were vital to arrive at the satisfaction by the detaining authority.”

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner, in support of the above points, vehemently urged that the impugned order is vitiated as there is total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order. It is the contention that voluminous documents running into 287 pages shown to be considered by the detaining authority within a period of two days, this by itself shows the non-application of mind. It was not possible for the detaining authority to go through 287 pages document within a period of two days and hence the same vitiates the impugned order. On the second ground of delay in passing the impugned order, the learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was inordinate delay in passing the impugned order from the date of registration of the first offence i.e. 6.6.2018. It is further contended that only with a view to fill up the gap, the two in-camera statements were recorded after the detaining authority issued the impugned order of detention. The impugned detention order is thus vitiated on this ground. It is submitted that the bail application and the bail orders were not placed before the detaining authority and on that ground also, the impugned order is vitiated. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted representation to the State Government and the same was not expeditiously forwarded by the Prison Authorities and since the result of the representation was not coming into, impugned detention order is initiated. The learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the impugned detention order is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside and detenu may be re