IMPORTANT POINT
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 detained individual under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GAURI GODSE, J. - By this Petition, the Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order of detention bearing No. PCB/DET/35/2023, Pimpri Chinchwad, dtd. 25/2/2023, issued by Respondent No.1-the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, under 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act').

2. Perusal of the detention order shows that the Detaining Authority has relied upon two criminal cases registered against the Petitioner; on 8/12/2022 vide C.R. No. 1872 of 2022 for alleged offence punishable under Sec. 65(k)(f) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act 1949 and C.R. registered on 16/12/2022 vide C.R. No. 1913 of 2022 for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 65(k)(c) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.

3. The detention order indicates that the Detaining Authority has relied upon the aforesaid two C.R.s registered against the Petitioner as well as the in-camera statement of the four witnesses for arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner is required to be detained for maintaining public order.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has raised various grounds of objection; however, has pressed into service ground raised in clause (c) of paragraph 5, which reads as under :

(c) The petitioner says and submits that a representation of the petitioner dtd. 4/3/2023 was sent to the Superintendent Yerwada Central Prison, Pune for further sending it to the State Government for expeditious consideration, revoke and communication. The petitioner says and submits that so far no communication has been received from the State Government as regards to the consideration of the said representation by the State Government, thereby the State Government has delayed in considering the representation of the petitioner expeditiously and diligently and communicating the result to the petitioner. All respective authorities are called upon to explain the delay, if any, occurred from the date of representation till today to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court failing which the continued detention will be held as illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the representation dated 3rd/4/3/2023 was sent to Respondent No. 2 through Advocate, and the jail authorities received the same on 8 th March 2023. She submitted that the signature of the Petitioner was taken on the said representation on 8/3/2023, and the same was forwarded to Respondent No. 2-State Government on the same day. The State Government received the said representation on 9 thMarch 2023. The learned counsel further submitted that the representation was rejected by Respondent No. 2 on 26/4/2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner thus submitted that the delay in rejecting the Petitioner's representation has vitiated the order of detention, and the same has rendered the Petitioner's detention illegal and impermissible. She further submitted that Respondent No. 2 has not given any explanation for explaining the delay that occurred in deciding the representation. She therefore submitted that the detention order is required to be set aside, and the Petitioner is required to be released forthwith.

6. Learned APP relied upon the affidavit dtd. 17/5/2023 of Mr. Vinoy Kumar Choubey, Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, an affidavit dtd. 14/6/2023 of Mr. Shivshankar B.Patil on behalf of the jail authorities-Respondent No. 3 and affidavit dtd. 14/6/2023 of Mr. Anil Eknath Kulkarni, Joint Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department - Respondent No. 2.

7. Learned APP submitted that in the affidavit, Respondent No. 2 has explained that the remarks of the Detaining Authority were received on 21/4/2023 vide letter dtd. 21/3/2023. He submitted that the affidavit fu