Sarang V. Kotwal, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. K.N.Shermale for the Petitioner and learned Addl. P.P, Mr. J.P.Yagnik for the Respondent – State.

2. The Petitioner has challenged the Detention Order dated 19th September, 2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 – The District Magistrate, Pune, issued under 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.

3. The Petitioner who is the Detenue was detained in Amravati Central Prison, Amravati.

4. There are various grounds taken in this petition challenging the order of detention. However, it is not necessary to refer to these grounds and it is not necessary to refer to the grounds on which, the Detention Order is passed because the petition will have to be allowed due to violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Before referring to the said aspect, very briefly, the grounds of detention are summarized as follows :

                   The Detention Order was passed on one offence registered vide C.R.No.364 of 2025 at Shirur Police Station, under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 9 and 15 of the Environment Protection Act, and Section 4A of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The said offence was registered on 28th May, 2025 regarding the incident dated 23rd May, 2025 when the Detenue was seen excavating murum without any permission from the Government. In connection with that offence, he was not arrested, but he was issued a notice under Section 35(3)(6) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Apart from the said registered offence, there are statements of two witnesses i.e. ‘witness A’ and ‘witness B’ in respect of the incident dated 22nd August, 2025 and 26th August, 2025. The Detention Order is based on these three incidents. Apart from that, there is a reference of four offences committed in the past from the year 2022 to 2023 registered at Shirur Police Station as well as one proceeding under Section 110(g) of Cr. P.C.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on ground III mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition. It is the case of the Petitioner that he had sent a Representation dated 30th September, 2025 to the Superintendent of Amravati Central Prison, Amravati for further sending it to the State Government for expeditious consideration. The Representation was for revoking the Detention Order. It is contended that till filing of the petition, no communication regarding his Representation was received by the Petitioner. He submitted that non-consideration of the Petitioner’s Representation for a long time without any valid explanation amounts to infringement of the requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

6. In this context, the learned Addl. P.P referred to the affidavit filed by the Additional Superintendent of Amravati Central Prison, Amravati, to the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Pune, and to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, on behalf of the State of Maharashtra.

7. We have considered the stand taken by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Addl.P.P and we have perused those three affidavits. The affidavit filed by the Additional Superintendent, Amravati Central Prison, Amravati, mentions that the Petitioner had submitted copies of Representation through his Counsel. The Representations were addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department. These copies were submitted on 30th September, 2025 for submission through the office of the Superintendent of Amravati Central Prison, Amravati. The Petitioner had signed those Representations. The affidavit specifically mentions that the said Representation was submitted by the office of the Superintendent of the Amravati Central Prison, Amravati to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Home Department (Special), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 30th September, 2025 through e-mail and speed post.

8. In this context, the affidavit filed by Shri. Rajendra Bhalwane, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai is important. He has mentioned in his affidavit that the Representation dated 30th September, 2025 of the Detenue was received by the the Desk Special Branch 3-B on e-office dated 8th October, 2025 through the Central Registry of the Home Department which was sent by Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur, vide their letter dated 30th September, 2025 alongwith the advocate’s letter dated 30th September, 2025. Shri.Yagnik, learned Addl. P.P submitted that inadvertently, Nagpur Central Prison is mentioned in the affidavit, whereas, infact it was received from the Amravati Central Prison, Amravati.

9. Be that as it may, the affidavit further mentions that such Representations were usually received by e-mail / by hand at the Desk Special Branch 3-B through the concerned Prison, but it was inadvertently not checked due to heavy work load and Diwali Vacation until 27th October, 2025. Upon noticing the said Representation on 27th October, 2025, further steps were taken. The remarks were called from the detaining Authority. Then the Representation was considered by Assistant Section Officer, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and finally the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). It is further mentioned that the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) finally rejected the Representation on 12th November, 2025 and the rejection was communicated to the Petitioner by post vide letter dated 13th November, 2025 through the Registry Section of Home Department.

10. From the averments in the affidavit, it is clear that there is an unexplained delay at two stages. At the first stage between 30th September, 2025 upto 8th October, 2025 there is no explanation as to why the Representation was not received by the State Government immediately and what had happened to the Representation between 30th September, 2025 upto 8th October, 2025. There is no explanation for not attending the Representation for this period. This is the first stage of the unexplained delay. Secondly, even thereafter, from 8th October, 2025 upto 27th October, 2025, no action was taken on that Representation. It is mentioned that from 8th October, 2025, it was not checked due to heavy work load and Diwali Vacation inadvertently until 27th October, 2025. This explanation is totally unacceptable. It is hardly an explanation. After that, some steps were taken from 27th October, 2025 and it was rejected on 12th November, 2025. However, the delay occurred on the aforementioned two stages remains unexplained. This is clear violation of the Petitioner’s rights to make Representation which is required to be decided expeditiously. Article 22(5) reads thus :

                   “Article 22(5) - When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.”

                   In this particular case, there is gross violation of this provision of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the continued detention of the Petitioner is unsustainable. Hence, the following order :

                   : ORDER :

                   The Petitioner – Vikas @ Kajya s/o Babaji Chore, who is detained pursuant to the order of detention bearing No. PHM/MPDA/SR/06/2025 dated 19th September, 2025, issued by the Respondent No.1, shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The petition is accordingly disposed of.