(1) 940 Cri. W. P. 1157-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1157 OF 2026 RAHUL ARUN TAK VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ….. Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Milind M. Patil (Beedkar) APP for Respondents: Mr. S. J. Salgare .... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J. DATED : August 21, 2026 ORDER:- 1. Heard. 2. Though the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by respondent No.2 under the provisions of MPDA Act is challenged by the petitioner, but the learned A.P.P., on instructions, submits that, the said order is not yet executed and petitioner is not detained yet. 3. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the order shall not remain in force, since approval order is not passed within the period mentioned in Section 3 (3) of the MPDA Act. However, today, the learned A.P.P. placed on record the said approval order, which appears to be passed on 30th March 2026. As such, the original detention order dated 19.03.2026 is very much in force today. (2) 940 Cri. W. P. 1157-2026.odt 4. Moreover, since the said order is not executed, by detaining the petitioner, the present petition appears to be premature. Accordingly, it stands disposed of. 5. We make it clear that the further remedy for the petitioner for challenging the impugned order is kept open. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE YSK/