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 invalid.

JUDGMENT :

M.W. Chandwani, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner challenges detention order of her son dated 02.06.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 - District Magistrate, Wardha under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous persons, video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Amendment of 2015) (for short, ‘MPD Act’). The petitioner also lays to challenge the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 - State of Maharashtra.

3. Necessary facts which gives rise to present petition can be stated as under:

A proposal was initiated to detain the detenu by invoking provisions of Section 3(2) of the MPD Act alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner was a dangerous person in the area falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Wardha City. The detenu is involved in dangerous criminal activities. Number of criminal cases have been registered against him at Police Station, Wardha City from 2012 till 2021. After considering the criminal cases registered for last five years and in-camera statement ‘A’ and ‘B”, the learned Sub-District Magistrate held that he was subjectively satisfied that despite of preventive actions against the detenu he is continuously indulged in committing heinous crime and breach of orders and ultimately disturb the public peace and order; and held him as a ‘dangerous person’ as defined under the provisions of MPD Act and passed impugned order of detention, which is under challenge in this petition.

4. Though, there are other grounds raised in the petition, Mrs. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the ground that the petitioner's representation was not considered by Respondent no.1, the State Government, expeditiously, thereby infringed his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The detenu has independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India requesting for his release. It was imperative on the respondent no. 1, to consider the said representation within reasonable dispatch and to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. But, in the present case, though the representation was made on 04.07.2023 to the Superintendent of Jail, Amravati but the State Government did not dispose of within reasonable dispatch. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay caused by the State in considering and deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2023. Therefore, according to her, the detention order was vitiated and was liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Shri Doifode, learned APP appearing on behalf of State vehemently submitted that the representation made by the detenu dated 04.07.2023 to the Jail Authority, Amravati has been forwarded to the State Government. The Advisory Board has given opinion and said opinion of Advisory Board has referred to the State Government. The Advisory Board issued notice to the detenu and heard him through Video Conferencing and after receipt of the confirmation order of the State Government on 17.07.2023 representation of the detenu has been rejected. According to learned APP Shri Doifode, the representation of the petitioner was duly considered by the State Government within possible time and rejected it. Hence, he submitted that the petition has no merit and required to be dismissed.

6. Since the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the State Government is raised, therefore, few dates are relevant for deciding the present petition. The detention order was passed by the authority on 02.06.2023 i.e. within five days from the date of actual detention. The order was approved by the Government on 03.06.2023. Reference was made to the Advisory Board on 12.06.2023. The order of detention was confirme