IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

GAURI GODSE, J. - By this petition, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order of detention bearing No. CRIME/PCB/DET/BAGUL/10/2023 dtd. 24/1/2023 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City-Respondent No. 1 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. In the exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Sec. 2 of Sec. 3 of the MPDA Act, the impugned detention order was passed on 24/1/2023. A perusal of the detention order indicates that the detaining authority has recorded that with a view to preventing the applicant from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing him to be detained.

3. The petition raises various grounds for challenging the order of detention; however, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the ground raised in paragraph 5 (f) on page 9 of the petition, which reads as under:

<WXY>"(f) The petitioner says and submits that a representation of the petitioner dtd. 14/3/2023 was sent to the Superintendent Kolhapur Central Prison, Kolhapur 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."</WXY>

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner is not explained by the State Government. As such, there is a violation of principles laid down in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. She further submitted that delay in deciding the representation rendered the continued detention of the petitioner illegal. In support of her contentions, she relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, 1999(1) LJ (SC) 265. and Harish Pahwa Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1981) 2 Supreme Court Cases 710.

5. The Applicant made representation to the State Government through the Superintendent of Kolhapur Central Prison on 14/3/2023. The jail authorities received the representation on 17/3/2023, and after taking the signature of the applicant, the same was forwarded to the State Government on 20/3/2023. As per the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai, remarks were called for from detaining authority on 20/3/2023 by Special Branch - 3B Desk. As per the said affidavit, remarks of the detaining authority were received by E-mail on 12/4/2023 vide letter dtd. 12/4/2023. Said affidavit further states that the concerned Assistant Sec. Officer submitted a file containing remarks of the detaining authority along with the representation of the applicant to the Sec. Officer on 12/4/2023 and that the Sec. Officer endorsed the same on 13/4/2023 and forwarded it to the Joint Secretary (In-Charge) on the same day. Said affidavit further states that on 14/4/2023, 15/4/2023 and 16/4/2023 being holidays, Joint Secretary (In-Charge) endorsed it on 17/4/2023 and forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) on the same day. Accordingly, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) considered remarks of the detaining authori