Delay in consideration of representation in preventive detention violates fundamental rights under Art.22(5) of the Constitution.

1.Through this writ petition preferred under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as father of the detenu Mukhtar Mastan Shaikh, has impugned the order dated 28-6-2000 passed by the second respondent Mr. M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai detaining the detenu under sub-section (1) of S.3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment 1996).
The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 28-6-2000 was served on the detenu on 5-12-2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.

2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on one C. R. namely C. R. No. 83 / 2000 under S.387, S.504, S.34, IPC registered on the basis of a complaint dated 26-2-2000 filed by Salim Makarani at Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai and in camera statements of two witnesses namely A and B which were recorded on 25-4-2000 and 28-4-2000 respectively.
Since in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the said C.R. and the in camera statements is not necessary for the adjudication of ground No. 5(vi) pleaded in the petition on which ground alone, in our view, this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them.

3. Ground No. 5(vi) in short is that on 10-1-2001, the detenu sent a representation, addressed to the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, on behalf of the State Government through the Superintendent of Mumbai Central Prison which was considered and rejected by the State Government, the rejection letter having been sent on 31-1-2001, and the State Government should satisfy this Court as to whether the said representation was considered expeditiously and independently by the State Government, uninfluenced by the opinion of the Honourable Advisory Board, and whether the reply was communicated to the detenu without any loss of time. In the said ground, it has been pleaded that in the event of the failure of the State Government in so satisfying this Honourable Court on the aforesaid counts, the impugned detention order would be rendered violative of Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India.

4. Ground No. 5(vi) has been replied to in two returns namely those of the detaining authority and of Mr. M. B. Khopkar, Desk Officer, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.In paras 12 of his return, the detaining authority has stated that the contents of the said ground pertain mainly to the State Government and he had no comments to offer.
In para 9 of his return, Mr. Khopkar has furnished a reply to the said ground. He stated that the detenu's representation dated 10-1-2001 addressed to the Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, (Preventive Detention) Home Department (Special) Mantralaya, Mumbai which was forwarded by the Superintendent, Mumbai Central Prison, Mumbai vide his letter dated 10 - 1-2001 was received in the department on 10 - 1-2001. After it was scrutinized, remarks of the detaining authority were called for on 11-1-2001 which were received vide letter of the detaining authority dated 23-1-2001. On 24-1-2001, the detenu's representation, along with the remarks of the detaining authority, was processed by the Desk Officer who on that very date, forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary and the latter forwarded it to the Principal Secretary (Prevention Detention) for his consideration on 25-1-2001 who on 29-1-2001 forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (26, 27 and 28th January, 2001 were holidays) who rejected the same on 30-1-2001 and on