The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in sending the report to the State Government, discrepancies in witness statements, and violation of the petitioner's rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India can render a detention order illegal and unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT

S.S.SHINDE, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. On 16.03.2021, order of detention under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act, was issued by Respondent No. 1- Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City, Nagpur. On 22.06.2021, a representation of the petitioner was sent to the State Government through the Superintendent Yerwada Central Prision, Pune, for expeditious consideration and revocation of the order of detention. On 08.04.2021, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner was interviewed by the advisory board at Mumbai through virtual conference. Hence, this writ petition thereby challenging the legal and constitutional validity of the detention order.

3. The Petitioner has incorporated grounds (a) to (e) in the petition, however, learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the petition confined her arguments to ground (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). Learned counsel submits that though the detaining authority i.e. Respondent No. 1 has relied upon C.R. No. 351 of 2020, it is to be noted that in the said crime the petitioner was not even present on the spot of incident, it was his son who has dealt with the complainant. Therefore, the said offence should have kept out of consideration while passing the order of detention. It is further submitted that in three cases which have been relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the detention order, in all those cases the petitioner was produced before the Court and the Court has granted bail to him. It is submitted that the alleged offences are under the Maharashtra MoneyLending (regulation) Act, 2014, and in respect of those offences, the law will take its own course and there was no need to invoke the provisions of MPDA Act. It is submitted that two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A ' and 'B ' are found to have been recorded on 12.02.2021 and 13.02.2021 respectively. On a close scrutiny of both the statements it was noticed that that there are at least seven blanks in both the statements of witnesses 'A ' and 'B '. The statements therefore cannot be said as true and authentic for having several blanks. Whereas the detaining authority in the grounds of detention while narrating the statements of witnesses 'A ' and 'B ' has furnished the details which are not disclosed in the material statements of witnesses and it is difficult to understand, as to how and from where these material/information is incorporated in the grounds of detention, when they are not furnished in the material statement of witness 'A ' and 'B '. Such a variance in the grounds of detention when compared with the contents of in-camera statements, creates confusion and its truthfulness cannot be believed. As a result, the petitioner is deprived of making any effective representation, as such petitioner 's right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is violated.

4. It is submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 22.06.2021 was sent to the Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison, Pune for forwarding the same to the State Government for expeditious consideration, revocation, but, so far, no communication has been received from the State Government as regards to the consideration of said representation of the petitioner. The State Government has caused considerable delay in considering the representation of the petitioner and not considered and decided the same expeditiously and diligently. The State Government has not explained the delay occurred from the date of representation till same was decided. It is further submitted that the detaining authority has not complied with the requirement of law strictly inasmuch as no report is sent promptly and expeditiously to the State Government forthwith as required by Section 3(3) of MPDA Act. The Hon 'ble Apex Court while interpreting the very word 'forthwith ' as immediately, without any loss of time and with sense of urgen