Unexplained delay in passing the detention order vitiates the order, and non-compliance with the requirement of law under the M.P.D.A. Act renders the detention order legally unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

MILIND N.JADHAV, J.

1. This Petition takes exception to the order of Detention bearing No. D. O. No. PCB/DET/1480/2021 dtd. 30/6/2021 issued under Sec. 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short "M.P. D.A. Act ") by the Respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel Ms. Tripathi has restricted her submissions to the contentions raised in grounds (b), (c), (d) of the Petition. It is argued that there is a gross delay of about 5 months in passing the impugned order of detention from the last date of the last incident on 27/1/2021. The delay in passing the impugned order on 30/6/2021 is unexplained. There is no promptitude on the part of the authorities. 2.1. Learned counsel has in support of her proposition referred to an relied upon the following 4 judgments for the unexplained and undue delay of 5 months in passing the impugned order of detention :

1. Pradeep Nilkant Paturakar Vs. S. Ramamurthi and Ors. 1993 Supp (2) SCC 61

2. Sanjeev @ Sanjay @ T.N.Upade Vs. Commissioner of Police, Solapur Cri. W.P.No 3035 of 2021

3. Niyazuddin @ Sonu Ansari Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 3870

4. Mohsin Ahmed Vs. State of Maharashtra 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 2409

2.2. Learned counsel has further argued that the requirement of law as envisaged under Sec. 3(3) of the M.P.D.A. Act has not been complied with in the present case. It is submitted that the approval of the order of detention is not done forthwith as per requirement of law. The representation dtd. 26/8/2021 of the Petitioner was sent to the Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune for forwarding it to the State Government for expeditious consideration; there is no communication received so far from the authorities till date and thus there is an admitted delay.

2.3. Learned counsel has referred to an relied upon the following judgments in support of non-compliance of the requirement of law under Sec. 3(3) of the M.P.D.A. Act in the present case :

(i) Hetchin Haokip Vs. State of Manipur and Ors. 2018)9 SCC 562

(ii) Sanjay s/o. Ramuji Phatode Vs. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and Ors. Cri.W.P.No. 2335/2021

(iii) Dharani Raja Padyachi vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 3504

(iv) Mahesh Gopinath Pawar Vs. Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad and Ors. Cri. W.P.No. 3372/2019

2.4. Petitioner has also pleaded that on reading of the statements of the witnesses, it prima-facie appears that the police authorities have given assurances to them to give those statements and as such the same are not independent and have been recorded on receiving false assurances.

3. PER CONTRA, learned APP Ms. S.D.Shinde has drawn our attention to the Affidavit-in-Reply dtd. 6/10/2021 filed by Shirish Nagorao Mohod., Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, dtd. 12/10/2021 filed by Commissioner of Police, Pune City, Pune and dtd. 5/10/2021 filed by the Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune and contended that the detention order has been passed in accordance with law. It is submitted that the Petitioner was a dangerous person and the authority was satisfied on the basis of material available which included in-camera statements of witnesses and only on going through the same, there was subjective satisfaction of the competent authority. It is further submitted that there is no illegality committed in granting assurance of safety and secrecy to the witnesses whose statements have been recorded as it became necessary for the police to assure the witnesses about their safety. It is also denied that the order of detention is passed only taking into consideration solitary criminal case vide C.R.No. 13/2021 and two in-camera statements of witnesses and that there are 8 offences registered against the Petitioner in Pune City and the criminal activities of the detenu are found to be prejudical to the maintenance of law and order. Therefor