Back
A. S. GADKARI, PRAKASH D. NAIK
Sangharsh – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Police Pune City – Respondent
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
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(....
The court established that delays in processing representations against detention orders, especially when unexplained, violate constitutional rights and can lead to the quashing of such orders.
Delays in the consideration of representations against detention orders, when not satisfactorily explained, can render such detention unconstitutional and illegal, violating the rights of the detaine....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prompt consideration and disposal of representations in cases involving the curtailment of an individual's liberty, as guara....
Delay in considering the detenu's representation by the State Government violated the detenu's constitutional right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, rendering the detention order inv....
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 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
