Detaining authorities must address representations in preventive detention cases without undue delay to comply with constitutional mandates, or the detention order becomes invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Neeraj P. Dhote, J.

1. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of both the sides.

2. Impugned in this Petition is the order dated 03/04/2024 bearing No. D.O. 2024/RB-Desk-1/Pol-1/MPDA/Kavi-83 issued by the Detaining Authority and its confirmation by the State vide order dated 12/04/2020 bearing No. MPDA-0424/CR-246/Spl-3B detaining the Petitioner in exercise of the powers under the provisions of Sub-section 1 of 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 of Essential Commodities Act , 1981 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the MPDA Act’]

3. The Detaining Authority held the Petitioner to be the Dangerous person on the basis of following criminal cases and two in-camera statements and recorded its satisfaction that the Petitioner’s activities were harmful for public order in the Jalna District.

Preventive Action

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the main grounds of challenge are; [a] Delay in passing the detention order [b] Delay in forwarding the report to the State Government [c] Delay in deciding the representation and [d] inconsistent in-camera statements.

He submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law in view of the following Judgments :-

[i] Hetchin Haokip Vs. State of Manipur and Ors.; 2018 All SCR (Cri.) 1240

[ii] Akash Annasaheb Hodade Vs. District Magistrate , Latur and Ors.; in Criminal Writ Petition No.391/2023

[iii] Dharani Raja Padyachi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2019 CJ (Bom) 1658

[iv] Harish Pawha Vs. State of U.P.; (1981) CJ (SC) 139

[v] S. Amutha Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.; 2022 Livelaw (SC) 25

[vi] Prakash Chandra Yadav @ Mungeri Yadav Vs. The State of Jharkhan and Ors.; 2023 Livelaw (SC) 529

[vii] Pradeep Nilkant Paturkar Vs. S. Ramamurthi; 1992 CJ (SC) 513

[viii] Austin William Luis Pinto Vs. Commissioner of Police , Greater Mumbai & Ors.; 2005 All MR (Cri.) 28

5. The impugned order is defended by the learned APP. She submitted that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned order on the basis of proposal received from the Police Department and after taking into consideration the relevant aspects. She submitted that there is no delay in processing the proposal and whatever delay is shown by the Petitioner, has been explained in the Affidavit-in-reply. She submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. She relied on the Judgment in the case of Narayan Radhakishan Bhusari Vs. District Magistrate Bee