Delay in considering the representation of a detenu, especially when the liberty of the detenu is at stake, renders the continued detention impermissible and invalid as being violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

PRAKASH D.NAIK,J. - Petitioner has challenged the Order of detention dtd. 29/9/2022 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City under Sec. 3(2) of "Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlord, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and persons engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981" (hereinafter referred to M.P.D.A. Act) along with Order of detention, ground of detention and the documents relied upon by detaining Authority while issuing detention Order were served upon petitioner/detenu.

2. impugned Order of detention is based on C.R. No. 180 of 2022 registered with Bundgarden Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under Ss. 324, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and C.R. No. 182 of 2022 registered with Bundgarden Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under Ss. 353, 332 of IPC. The detaining Authority has also relied upon the statement of two witnesses recorded in-camera for issuing the Order of detention.

3. The solitary ground urged by Petitioner which is sufficient to set aside the impugned Order of detention is that the representation addressed to the State of Maharashtra at the instance of the Petitioner was not dealt with expeditiously. In paragraph No. 5(G) of the Petition, it is urged that the representation of the Petitioner dtd. 1/12/2022 was sent to the Superintendent Mumbai Central Prison, Mumbai for forwarding it to State Government for expeditious consideration. On the date of filing of this Petition, the detenu had not received any communication from the State Government as regards to the consideration of the said representation by the State Government.

4. Ms. Tripathi learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner submitted that, representation dtd. 1/12/2022 was forwarded through Mumbai Central Prison where the Petitioner was detained with covering letter of the Advocate for Petitioner, requesting the Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison to obtain the signature of detenu/Petitioner on the representation and forward it to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison Mumbai had received the representation on 1/12/2022. The representation was rejected on 3/2/2023. The Messenger from Mumbai Central Prison had wrongly delivered the representation to the Office of the Advisory Board instead of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Thus the representation dtd. 1/12/2022 was ultimately rejected by the State Government on 3/2/2023 and the result was communicated to the detenu on 8/2/2023. Even after, representation was received in the Office of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, there has been delay in dealing with the said representation which has affected the constitutional right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

5. Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner has relied upon the following decisions are as under:-

(i) Devendra Ramlal Bidlan Vs. The Commissioner of Police Pune City and Ors. delivered by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2651 of 2022 decided on 18/11/2022.

(ii) Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik Vs. Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1403)

(iii) Mahesh Kumar Chauhan @ Banti Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 148)

6. Learned APP submitted that, after receipt of the representation by the Office of Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 21/1/2023, it was promptly dealt with and the decision was taken on 3/2/2023. Information of rejection was communicated to the detenu on 8/2/2023. Learned APP has relied upon the reply filed by Deputy Superintendent, Mumbai Central Prison, Mumbai wherein it is stated that, the concerned perso