IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of 'forthwith' in preventive detention laws requires prompt action without undue delay, and any failure to comply with this requirement can invalidate the detention order.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GAURI GODSE, J. - This petition is filed to challenge the order dtd. 23/1/2023 passed by respondent no. 1-District Magistrate, Jalgaon, in the exercise of powers under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 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 of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 ('MPDA' Act).

2. The detaining authority in the said order of detention has referred to the list of offences registered at various police stations of Bhusawal Taluka of Jalgaon district against the petitioner. The detaining authority has also referred to orders of taking preventive action by Bhusawal police station, district Jalgaon against the petitioner as well as has referred to details of externment proceedings initiated by Bhusawal police station, district Jalgaon against the petitioner. Thus, by referring to cases registered against the petitioner and his associates, the detaining authority has recorded that the petitioner and his associates carry dangerous weapons, thereby creating terror and fear in the minds of the public and committing various offences as mentioned in the sequence described in Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The detaining authority has, in detail referred to allegations against the petitioner in various cases registered against the petitioner, a list of which is mentioned in the detention order. The detaining authority has further reproduced the gist of in-camera statements of two witnesses and has held that considering the criminal activities of the petitioner, he falls within the definition of a dangerous person as defined in the said MPDA Act. Thus, by referring to various cases registered against the petitioner and the gist of the in-camera statement of two witnesses, the detaining authority has passed the order of detention against the petitioner.

3. The petition raises various grounds to challenge the order of detention; however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the ground raised in clause (c) of paragraph 5 of the petition, which reads as under:

"(c) The petitioner says and submits that the Detaining Authority has not complied with the requirement of law strictly in as much as no report is sent promptly and expeditiously to the Statement Government "forthwith" as required by Sec. 3(3) of the MPDA Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting the very word "forthwith" as immediately, without any loss of time and with sense of urgency. This has been followed by Bombay High Court in a number of judicial pronouncements. The authorities are called upon to explain the said delay, if any to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court with regard to the approval of the detention by the State Government under Sec. 3(3) of MPDA Act, as per the requirement of law. It is therefore the order of detention is illegal and bad in law liable to be quashed and set aside."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the detention order is passed on 23/1/2023, same was not sent to the State Government immediately as required under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the said MPDA Act. Learned counsel submitted that the requirement of law mandates that the detaining authority has to promptly and expeditiously send the order of detention to the State Government as required under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the MPDA Act. The learned counsel, by referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of detaining authority, submitted that there is no explanation given with respect to the delay in submitting the order to the State Government.

5. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hetchin Haokip Vs. State of Manipur and others,(2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 562. She has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dharani Raja Padyachi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and other