1-WP-2473-2025.doc Shailaja IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2473 OF 2025 Somnath alis Prashant alis ] Bapu Tukaram Bhosle ] Age 39 years, ] R/o Khavani, Tal. Mohol, ] Dist. Solapur ] Petitioner Versus 1. District Magistrate, ] Solapur ] 2. The State of Maharashtra ] (Through the Secretary Home ] Department (Spl) ] Mantralaya, Mumbai. ] 3. The Superintendent ] Yerwada Central Prison, ] Pune. ] Respondents ….. Mr. Jayshree Tripathi, for Petitioner. Mr. Anand Shalgaonkar, A.P.P, for Respondent – State. ….. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2025. 1 of 5 SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Digitally signed by SHAILAJA SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2025.09.23 20:02:46 +0530 1-WP-2473-2025.doc ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER M.S. KARNIK, J.]: 1. Heard Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shalgaonkar, learned A.P.P, for respondent – State. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order of detention dated 2nd April, 2025 issued by respondent No.1 under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (for short “MPDA Act”). 3. On 9th April, 2025, representation of the petitioner was sent to the State Government through the Superintendent Yerwada Central Prison, Pune for expeditious consideration and revocation of the order of detention. This petition was filed on 23rd April, 2025. Ground (c) of the Writ Petition which is pressed into service reads thus; “c. The petitioner says and submits that representation of the petitioner was sent on 9th April, 2025 to the Superintendent Yerwada Central Prison at Pune. 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, 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 2 of 5 1-WP-2473-2025.doc 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”. 4. We have perused the reply of the Detaining Authority i.e respondent No.1. In paragraph 10, it is stated that representation of the detenue dated 9th April, 2025 was received at the Detaining Authorities Office on 15th April, 2025. Parawise comments were sent to the State Government on 8th May, 2025. The State Government rejected the representation on 14th May, 2025. 5. So far as the reply of respondent No.2 – State Government is concerned, in paragraph 2, it is stated that remarks were called from the Detaining Authority on 15th April, 2025. As there were holidays on 10th May, 2025 (Saturday), 11th May, 2025 (Sunday) and 12th May, 2025 (Buddhapornima), the concerned Assistant Section Officer submitted the file to the Section Officer on 13th May, 2025. The Section Officer endorsed it on 14th May, 2025 and forwarded it to the Under Secretary. The Under Secretary endorsed it on 15th May, 2025 and forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary. The Deputy Secretary endorsed it on the same day and forwarded it to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) considered the remarks of the Detaining Authority and rejected the representation on 15th May, 2025. 3 of 5 1-WP-2473-2025.doc 6. We have also perused the reply of respondent No.3 – The Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune. In paragraph 4 , it is stated that representation was received in Jail on 11th April, 2025 and on the very same day, signature of the detenue was taken and representation was forwarded to the State Government on 11th April, 2025. Learned A.P.P submitted that delay has been sufficiently explained. However, we find that the period from 15th April, 2025 when the representation was received at the Detaining Authority’s Office, till 8th May, 2025 when parawise comments were sent to the State Government i.e for a period of 23 days, there is absolutely no explanation for this delay by the Detaining Authority. On this ground alone, the present petition deserves to succeed. 7. In support of the view that we take, reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banti v/s Union of India and others, (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 148 would be profitable, Paragraph 20 of which reads thus; “Reverting to the facts of the present case as submitted by the learned counsel, except merely mentioning that the representation was forwarded to the concerned sponsoring authority on 25.8.1989 and the comments from the sponsoring authority was received by the Department on September, 11, 1989, there is absolutely no explanation as to why such a delay had occurred. Therefore, in the light of the proposition laid down in Rama Dhondu Borade's case (From the Judgment and Order dated July, 5, 1984 of the Gujarat High Court in CRA No.948 of 1984) (albeit), we have no other option except to allow this appeal on the ground that this undue and unexplained delay is in violation of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22 (5) 4 of 5 1-WP-2473-2025.doc of the Constitution of India rendering the impugned order invalid”. 8. In our opinion, even in the present case, there is absolutely no explanation as to why delay of 23 days has occurred between receipt of representation by the Detaining Authority’s Office on 15th April, 2025 and sending of parawise comments to the State Government on 8th May, 2025. We, therefore, have no other option except to allow this Writ Petition on the ground that this undue and unexplained delay is in violation of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India rendering the impugned order invalid. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order of detention. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). 10. The parties to act on the authenticated of this order. [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] [M.S. KARNIK, J.] 5 of 5