Procedural adherence in detention orders under the MPDA Act mandates effective communication and timeliness.

JUDGMENT :

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. 

1. The Petitioner herein is challenging the Order of Detention dated 22.12.2023, passed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. the Commissioner of Police, Solapur. The Petitioner has been served with the Committal Order and the Grounds of Detention alongwith the compilation of documents. The Petitioner on receiving the said documents, addressed a representation to the State Government on 05.03.2024, through the Jail Authorities, for consideration and revocation of the Order of Detention.

2. The Petitioner herein is seeking directions to quash and set aside the Order of Detention dated 22.12.2023, issued under 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. (“the MPDA Act”), issued by the Respondent No.1 and to release him forthwith. The Petitioner has raised grounds of challenge in Ground Nos. ‘a’ to ‘g’ in the memo of the Petition.

3. In response to the Petition, the State authorities i.e. the Commissioner of Police, Solapur and the Superintend, Yerawada Central Prison, Pune, have filed their respective affidavits.

4. The Petitioner while making submissions has placed reliance on the grounds raised in the memo of the Writ Petition, from Ground Nos. ‘a’ to ‘g’, however, she has mainly relied on Ground Nos. ‘b’, ‘d’, ‘e’ and ‘f’.

The first ground contested by the Petitioner is, Section 3(3) of the MPDA Act contemplates that, the Detaining Authority has to forthwith forward report to the State Government, together with the grounds on which the order has been made with such other particulars, having bearing on the matter. In the present case the Detaining Authority failed to send the report forthwith.

According to the Petitioner there are judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court interpreting the word ‘forthwith’ as ‘immediately without any loss of time and with a sense of urgency’. The said mandate of law has not been followed in the present case therefore, the said Order of Detention vitiates. On this ground, the Order of Detention is required to be declared as illegal and bad in law.

5. The Respondent No.1 has filed his comprehensive affidavit opposing the present petition. In the said affidavit, opposing the grounds raised by the Petitioner. The Commissioner of Police has stated that, the Order of Detention alongwith compilation of documents i.e. Grounds of Detention, Committal Order and the documents relied on, were sent to the State Government through e-mail on the same date i.e. 22.12.2023 at 7.48 p.m. as well as through special messenger on 25.12.2023. They were received by the State Government on 26.12.2023, as it was Saturday and Sunday on 23.12.2023 and 24.12.2023 respectively. The State Government has approved the said Detention Order on 01.01.2024, which was served on the Petitioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the ground raised by the Petitioner.

6. Having considered the affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, it is clear that there is no delay on the part of the Detaining Authority, in forwarding the report to the State Government as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the MPDA Act. The very object behind the said provision as we can gather is that, the Order of Detention is required to be approved by the State Government within 12 days of its coming into force. In order to enable the State Government to approve the said order, within a period of 12 days the said provision has been made. If the said order is not approved by the State Government