1. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the detention order bearing No.PCB / DET / 26/2024 dated 16 February 2024 issued under S.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 (for short 'M.P.D.A. Act'). The petitioner was detained by the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad i.e. respondent No.1 on 16 February 2024. On the same day Committal order was passed directing the petitioner to be detained in Yerwada Central Prison, Yerwada, Pune. The petitioner was served with grounds of detention dated 16 February 2024. In Paragraph - 3, thirteen registered offences right from the year 2013 to 2022 at various police stations viz. Pimpri, Sangavi, Wakad and Nigade were mentioned. Certain preventive actions taken in the past are also mentioned, however, respondent No.1 had specifically mentioned in Paragraph 3.2 that he had not relied on the petitioner's earlier record of crime. The main material against the petitioner on the basis of which the detention order was passed was mentioned in Paragraphs 4.1 and 5. That pertains to C.R.No.202/2023 at Wakad police station and C.R. No.867/2023 at Sangola police station, Solapur. Besides these two registered offences there was reference to two in - camera statements mentioned in Para 6.1 and 6.2 in respect of instances dated 13 August 2023 and 3 September 2023.

2. It is not necessary to refer to these allegations and grounds of detention because the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the solitary ground of delay in considering the representation made by the petitioner. She submitted that on this ground alone the detention order is liable to be set aside. In this context the following dates are important. The petitioner had prepared a representation dated 14 October 2024. It was received by the Jail Superintendent on 16 October 2024. The Jail Superintendent had forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Special Branch (3 - B), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai through mail dated 16 October 2024. It was received in the Mantralaya by hand through Yerwada Central Prison, Pune on 29 October 2024. After that it was finally decided on 5 December 2024. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that there was delay in various parts. Initially there was delay of 14 days from 16 October 2024 to 29 October 2024 for sending the representation from Yerwada Central Prison to Mantralaya. Thereafter, for about 36 days nothing was done about the representation and it was not considered. This delay has remained unexplained and, therefore, it has violated the right of the petitioner under Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside. There is violation of Art.22(5). She submitted that merely affording opportunity is not enough but that representation has to be decided at the earliest.

3. The learned APP appearing for the respondents tried to justify the delay in considering the representation. It was not inadvertent and not deliberate and, therefore, the detenu who is a dangerous person may not get benefit out of this lapse. We have considered these submissions.

4. In this context, the affidavit filed by the authorities are important. The Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison has filed his affidavit - in - reply. He has stated that representation dated 14 October 2024 on behalf of the petitioner was submitted through his Advocate and it was received in the prison on 16 October 2024 by post addressed in the name of Superintendent of Central Prison, Pune. The representation was forwarded after obtaining the petitioner's signature on it to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Special Branch (3 - B), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai through mail dated 16 October 2024. The Deputy Secretary, Go