IMPORTANT POINT
The detention order can be quashed if there is a delay in taking preventive action, non-consideration of bail, non-communication of grounds of detention, and illegible documents supplied to the detainee, violating their constitutional rights.

JUDGMENT :

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides finally with their consent.

2. The petitioner is assailing order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the respondent no.1/District Magistrate, Ahmednagar under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the MPDA Act for the sake of brevity and convenience).

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner tenders across the bar additional affidavit/rejoinder to affirm that even till date he has not been communicated with the decision on his representation dated 20.10.2023. He places on record the order below Exhibit(1) in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1183/2023, granting him bail in C.R. No.210/2023.

4. The respondent no.1 has considered an offence bearing C.R. No.210/2023 registered on 11.04.2023 with Bhingar Police Station and in-camera statements of witnesses. The petitioner has been declared to be a ‘dangerous person’. Considering his illegality activities, detrimental to the public order, impugned order was passed on 06.10.2023. He was committed on 07.10.2023. It was approved under Section 3(2) of the Act on 13.10.2023. The respondent no.2 confirmed order on 11.04.2023.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order on following grounds :

(i) There is delay of about five months from registration of offence and the impugned order.

(ii) Order enlarging the petitioner on bail has not been considered by the detaining authority.

(iii) The representation dated 20.10.2023 by the petitioner has not been considered, thereby violating article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(iv) The documents served upon the petitioner was illegible causing prejudice to right under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

(v) Grounds of detention have not been communicated to the petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on following judgments :

(i) Pradeep Nilkant Paturkar Vs. S. Ramamurthi & Ors. AIR 1994 SCC 656

(ii) Austin William Luis Pinto Vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2005 ALL MR (Cri.) 28

(iii) Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tiratsingh Labana Vs. Commissioner of Police Thane, Criminal Writ Petition Stamp No.15876/2023

(iv) Digambar @ Digambar Vitthal Dagdade Vs. District Magistrate, Latur in Cri. Writ Petition No.1736/2023.

(v) Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of Maharashtra 2012 Cri. L.J. 1334

(vi) Lakhan Rohidas Jagtap Vs. Commissioner of Police Pune 2019 ALL MR (Cri) 5261

(vii) Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs. UOI and Ors. 1991 Cri. L.J. 3291

(viii) Vishal Waman Mhatre Vs. Commissioner of Police 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 42

(ix) Harish Pahwa Vs. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 710

(x) Mahesh Kumar alias Banti Vs. UOI and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 148

(xi) S. Amutha Vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 25

(xii) Chandra Shekhar Ojha Vs. A.K. Karnik 1981 ALL MR ONLINE 492

(xiii) Mrs. Jayshree Waghmare Vs. Commissioner of Police Criminal Writ Petition No.10685/2023

(xiv) Shri Shadab Siddiq Khan Vs. R.H. Mendonca 1998 ALL MR Cri. 1344

(xv) Ramchandra A. Kamat Vs. UOI 1980 ALL MR ONLINE 119 (SC)

(xvi) Rupesh Ram Thakur Vs. Commissioner of Police, Thane 2018 ALL MR Cri. 2264

(xvii) Mrs. Nafisa Khalifa Ghanem Vs. UOI (1982) 1 SCC 422

7. Learned APP supports impugned order. He would rely on affidavit-in-reply as well as additional affidavit of the respondent no.1 as well as respondent no.2. He submits that the period consumed in taking impugned action has been adequately explained in paragraph no.7 of the reply. Order enlarging petitioner on bail was considered by the detaining authority. The representation was rejected by the respondent no.1 on 10.11.2023 and was communicated to the Jail Authorities as well as to the petitioner. The relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner on 06.10.2023 and he was not taken by surprise.

8. It is further submitted that there is cogent material against the petit