The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for expeditious consideration of representations challenging detention orders and the impact of unreasonable delay on the legality of detention.

JUDGMENT

MILIND N.JADHAV, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the following relief:

"b. The order of Detention bearing No. TC/PD/DO/MPDA/02/2021 dtd. 24/8/2021 issued under Sec. 3 of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981 by the Respondent No.1 be quashed and set aside and on quashing the same the Petitioner be ordered for release forthwith."

4. Petitioner is presently detained at Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik and order of detention dtd. 24/8/2021 came to be passed and served upon the Petitioner. On receipt of the said order, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the State Government on 7/12/2021 through the Jail Authorities for consideration and revocation of the order of detention.

5. Learned counsel Ms. Jayshree Tripathi appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the impugned detention order has been passed with total non application of mind by the detaining authority; that the representation dtd. 7/12/2021 filed by the Petitioner for consideration and revocation of the detention order has not been acted upon and has remained unattended with the jail authorities for more than three months; that the Petitioner has not received any communication from the State Government with respect to his representation resulting in undue delay and continuation of the Petitioner in detention. She submits that there is gross delay in passing the order of detention which has been passed after about 2 months and 14 days after the date of the last incident; that the two cases which are relied upon in the order of detention are still under investigation and have not reached any finality and thus cannot be considered for passing the detention order; that in the present case save and except the aforementioned two CR's , there is no other material or case to indict the Petitioner. She submits that there is violation of the provisions of Sec. 3(3) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, DrugOffencers, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (for short "MPDA Act") in as much as admittedly no urgency has been shown by the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner which has challenged the detention order.

5.1. Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case B. Alamelu Vs. State of T.N. and Ors.,(1995) 1 SCC 306. and a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dtd. 16/9/2021 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1497 of 2021 (to which one of us S.S. Shinde, J. was a party) to submit that in the event if there is a delay on the part of the jail authorities in forwarding and referring the representation received against the detention order to the appropriate Government then the avoidable and unexplained delay resulting in rendering the continued detention of the Petitioner is illegal and constitutionally impermissible. She submits that in the present case admittedly there is a delay in not forwarding the representation dtd. 7/12/2021 on the part of the jail authorities to the State Government for consideration. Paragraph No. 6 of the decision of the Supreme Court in B. Alamelu's case(supra) is relevant and reads thus:-

"6. In the facts of the present case it is not the delay on the part of the Central Government in disposing of the representation on 27/7/1994 which reached its end on 22-7- 1994 that is on the anvil. The question is whether the delay on the part of the jailor in despatching the representation received by him on 4/5/1994 to the Central Government has violated the constitutional right under Article 22(5) or not. So far as that question is concerned, it has to be noted that the jailor on his part never despatched the representation to the Central Government. If he had despatched the same as expeditiously as possible after 4/5/1994 as requested by the appellant in the covering letter, the matter would have stood on a different footing but that never happened