Sandesh D. Patil, J.

1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the detention order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. the District Magistrate, Solapur in proceedings bearing No. 2025/DCB-2/RR-6229 (1)/25.

2. The respondent No. 1 reached to a satisfaction in respect of the petitioner that there are several crimes registered against the petitioner for attempt to murder, kidnapping, voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapon, gathering an unlawful assembly and rioting while being armed with dangerous weapon, illegally extracting sand without permit and transporting it for financial gain, etc.

3. The respondent No. 1 opined that although legal action has been taken against the petitioner from time to time in connection with these registered offences and in spite of he being arrested, the petitioner has again committed similar offences after being released on bail. The respondent No. 1 opined that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order directing the petitioner to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-marking of Essential Commodities, Illegal Gambling, Illegal Lottery and Human Trafficker Act, 1981 (hereinafter for brevity purpose referred to as “the MPDA Act”).

4. The respondent No. 1 has also submitted to the petitioner the grounds of arrest. The respondent No. 1 has relied upon the FIR registered against the petitioner at the Pandharpur City Police Station, Solapur Rural dated 31st July, 2025 bearing CR number 489/2025, under Section 118 (1), 115(2), 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

5. The respondent No. 1 relied upon statements of two witnesses which were recorded in-camera. The two witnesses namely Witness Nos. A and B deposed about the incident which took place on 25.08.2025 and 11.08.2025 respectively.

6. The respondent No. 1 after relying upon the said statements passed the impugned order.

7. The learned Counsel Ms. Tripathi, appearing for the petitioner, challenged the order on the following grounds:

                   i) The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2026 was rejected on 07.04.2026. There was a delay of more than two months, which was not satisfactorily explained by the respondent.

8. She stated that the representation was made on 20.01.2026 the remarks were called from the Detaining Authority on 23.01.2026, and ultimately the remarks were received from the Detaining Authority on 06.04.2026. She stated that thus, there is no explanation of whatsoever nature for the delay, which is caused by the Detaining Authority.

9. In support of her case, she has relied upon the Judgment in the matter of Sunil Kumar Gupta alias Sunil Chain Vs. Union of India in Criminal Appeal No. 2189 of 2026 [@ SLP [CRL .] NO. 3869/2026], by relying upon the said Judgment, she submitted that, a duty is imposed on the concerned government to consider the representation of the detenu at the earliest point of time. If the detaining authority does not forward the representation to the State Government immediately, though it had been actually sent to the detaining authority by the prison authority at the earliest point of time, same would amount to miscarriage of justice.

10. She also relied upon the Judgment in the matter of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik Vs. Union of India and others((1989) 3 SCC 277) contending that the representation should be considered within a reasonable time, it is imperative on part of every authority to discharge their obligation within reasonable promptness.

11. Another ground on which the petitioner has relied upon is that there was a delay in passing of the detention order and that no explanation was offered by the respondents for the delay caused. Hence, this vitiated the detention order.

12. She submitted that the detaining authority has taken into consideration solitary CR No. 489/2025 dated 31.07.2025, along with in-camera statements of Witness Nos. A and B to arrive at his subjective satisfaction. She submitted that in the relied CR i.e. CR No. 489/2025 the petitioner was served with a notice under section 35 (3) of the BNSS on 12.08.2025. The in-camera statements of both the witnesses were recorded on 29.08.2025 and 01.09.2025, for incidence, which occurred on 25.08.2025 and 11.08.2025, respectively. She submitted that the said in-camera statements are taken only to fill up the gap and pass the order of detention on 10.11.2025 i.e. after a delay of more than two months.

13. She submitted that if the authority passing the detention order was satisfied that the person is a dangerous person, then they should have acted promptly and issued detention order without any delay.

14. In support of her contention regarding delay, she relied upon the Judgment in the matter of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar Vs. S. Ramamurthi and others(1993 Supp (2) SCC 61). She particularly relied upon paragraph nos. 6, 7, 13 and 14.

15. The learned APP appearing for the respondent-state stated that the detenu was detained in prison on 10.11.2025, vide detention order dated 10.11.2025 issued by the respondent No. 1. He stated that the detention order was approved by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (SPL) vide their order dated 21.11.2025. The said order was received by the jail authorities as per letter dated 27.11.2025 to be served to the detenu. After the receipt of the government order, the jail authorities had called upon the detenu on 27.11.2025 and explained him the government order in Marathi and handed over to him the copy of the communication.

16. He stated that the petitioner was informed about the hearing with respect to the detention of the petitioner, which was scheduled on 10.12.2025 at 4:30 PM through video conferencing. He stated that the signature of the petitioner was obtained upon the said communication made by the Advisory Board. Thereafter, the Home Department of Maharashtra vide its Order dated 26.12.2025 had confirmed the detention order passed by the detaining authority on 10.11.2025 upholding the detention. The said communication was informed to the petitioner and his signatures were taken. He stated that on 20.01.2026 a representation was submitted by the petitioner through his advocate, which was received by the prison on 22.01.2026 and the same was forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Special Branch Mantralaya through mail dated 22.01.2026 the acknowledgment was produced by the officers in their affidavit.

17. He further stated that the representation was received from the detenu on 22.01.2026 late in the evening by Email. Thereafter the remarks were called for from the Detaining Authority i.e. District Magistrate, Solapur on 23.01.2026. The remarks of the Detaining Authority were received on 06.04.2026 vide their letter dated 11.02.2026. The concerned Assistant Section Officer submitted a file containing remark of Detaining Authority along with the representation of the detenu to Section Officer on 07.04.2026. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), considered the remark of the detaining authority and rejected the said representation on 07.04.2026 the rejection of representation was communicated by post to the detenu vide letter dated 07.04.2026. He stated that, thus, there was no delay in deciding the representation.

18. He stated that there was no delay in recording the in-camera statement of both the witnesses A and B. The said in-camera statements where correctly recorded and that there was no delay on the part of the detaining authorities. He submitted that there was no delay in recording of in-camera statement, and there was no delay, after the proposal to initiate proceeding against the petitioner was received. He stated that the live link never snapped, and that Detention Order in question is correctly passed and requires no interference.

19. We have considered the submission of both the parties. The impugned detention order was passed by the respondent No. 1 on 10.11.2025. As far as the first ground i.e. representation of the petitioner is rejected after a delay of more than two months and the said delay is not satisfactorily explained is concerned. We have to note few important dates as under:

                   (1) 20.01.2026, the representation was made by the petitioner.

                   (2) 23.01.2026, the State Government called for remark from the detaining authority.

                   (3) 06.04.2026, the remarks were received vide letter dated 11.02.2026 from the Detaining Authority.

                   (4) 07.04.2026 the respondent-State rejected the representation of the petitioner.

20. Thus, on perusal of the aforesaid dates, it is clear that although the petitioner had submitted a representation to the State Government on 20.01.2026 and in spite of the fact that the remarks were called from the Detaining Authority on 23.01.2026, no satisfactory explanation is given as to why the Detaining Authority forwarded the remarks to the State Government only on 06.04.2026. Thus, there is a huge delay of more than two months in forwarding the explanation. The delay states on the face of the respondent.

21. The Apex Court in the matter of Sunil Kumar Gupta alias Sunil Chain (supra) has observed as under:

                   “ A duty is imposed on the concerned Government to consider the representation of the detenu at the earliest point of time. In the present case, the detaining authority did not forward the representation to the State Government immediately, though it had actually been sent to the detaining authority by the prison authority at the earliest point of time.”

22. The unexplained delay of more than two months is prejudicial to the interest of the detenu.

23. In the case of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik (supra) the Apex Court observed in paragraph No. 11 as under:

                   “11. Reverting to the instant case, we hold that the above observation in Vijay Kumar case [(1982) 2 SCC 43] will squarely be applicable to the facts herein. Indisputably the Superintendent of Central Prison of Bombay to whom the representation was handed over by the detenu on June 16, 1988 for mere onward transmission to the Central Government has callously ignored and kept it in cold storage unattended for a period of seven days, and as a result of that, the representation reached the government elevan days after it was handed over to the Jail Superintendent. Why the representation was retained by the Jail Superintendent has not at all been explained in spite of the fact that this Court has permitted the respondent to explain the delay in this appeal, if not before the High Court”.

24. The aforesaid observation of the Apex Court is squarely applicable in this case. In the present case in hand, also, although the representation was sent by the detenu to the State Government on 20.01.2026, and the State Government on 23.01.2026 sent the said representation to the Detaining Authority for inviting their remarks, the remarks were received by the State Government from the detenu authority only on 06.04.2026. Although the letter mentions that the letter is dated 11.02.2026, the huge delay of more than two months is sufficient to hold that prejudice was caused to the detenu.

25. The Apex Court in the matter of Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik (supra) was pleased to observe that even delay of 11 days in forwarding the representation was fatal to the case of the respondents. In the present case, the delay is of more than two months. The petition deserves to be allowed on this ground itself.

26. Adverting to the next ground i.e., delay in passing of the detention order, no explanation is offered by the respondent for delay vitiating the detention order. The Detaining Authority relied upon the solitary CR No. 489/2025 dated 31.07.2025. The Detaining Authority has also relied upon the statements of the witnesses i.e. A and B recorded on 29.08.2025 and 01.09.2025. The detention order was passed on 10.11.2025 i.e. after a delay of more than two months. Thus the live link is over snapped.

27. The Apex Court in the matter of Pradip Nilkanth Paturkar (supra) page 61 has held in paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 as under:

                   “12. Countering the argument of Mr. Gupte, the learned Additional Solicitor General drew our attention to Rajendrakumar Natvarlal Shah v. State of Gujarat [(1988) 3 SCC 153] in which this Court held that the non-explanation of the delay between 2nd February and May 28, 1987 could not give rise to legitimate inference that the subjective satisfaction arrived by the District Magistrate was not genuine. In the same decision, the learned Judges have pointed out "It all depends on the nature of the acts relied on, grave and determined or less serious and corrigible, on the length of the gap, short or long, on the reason for the delay in taking preventive action, like information of participation being available only in the course of an investigation." A perusal of the various decisions of this Court on this legal aspect shows that each case is to be decided on the facts and circumstances appearing in that particular case.

                   13. Coming to the case on hand, the detention order was passed after 5 months and 8 days from the date of the registration of the last case and more than 4 months from submission of the proposal. What disturbs our mind is that the statements from the witnesses A to E were obtained only after the detenu became successful in getting bail in all the prohibition cases registered against him, that too in the later part of March 1991. These statements are very much referred to in the grounds of detention and relied upon by the detaining authority along with the registration of the cases under the Act.”

28. The respondents have filed a detailed affidavit, however, the respondents have miserably failed to explain in both these affidavits as to why there was a delay caused on the part of the Detaining Authority as well as on the part of the State Government.

29. We are satisfied that the huge delay which is caused by the respondent in deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2026 and the delay caused in passing the detention order on 10.11.2025 is fatal to the case of the respondents. We are satisfied that the petition deserves to be allowed on this ground itself. We are further satisfied that the personal liberty of the petitioner cannot be curtailed in the aforesaid manner without following the due process of law. The extremely careless and casual approach with which the respondents have dealt with the case in hand is sufficient to allow the present petition.

30. We, therefore, proceed to pass the following Order:

                   ::ORDER::

                   (a) The petition stands allowed.

                   (b) The detention order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the respondent No. 1 Detention bearing No. 2025/DCB-2/RR-6229(1)/25 is hereby quashed and set aside.

31. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of.

32. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.