Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Devendra Ramlal Bidlan, was detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) by an order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The petitioner challenged the detention order by way of a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The primary ground raised was that the petitioner had made a representation dated 26.07.2022 to the Superintendent of Nagpur Central Prison for forwarding to the State Government for consideration, but the State Government failed to consider and communicate the decision on the representation expeditiously, resulting in an inordinate delay of over 100 days. The petitioner contended that this delay violated his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to make a representation and to have it considered without delay. The State, represented by the learned APP, did not provide any explanation for the delay. The Court, after hearing both sides, examined the record and found that the representation was made on 26.07.2022 and the State Government had not communicated any decision to the petitioner until the date of the judgment (18.11.2022). The Court noted that the right to make a representation under Article 22(5) is a constitutional safeguard and the detaining authority is duty-bound to consider it as soon as possible. The unexplained delay of over 100 days, without any satisfactory explanation from the State, rendered the continued detention illegal. The Court, therefore, quashed and set aside the detention order and directed the petitioner's release forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Delay in Considering Representation - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons and Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 - The detenu challenged the detention order on the ground that his representation dated 26.07.2022 was not considered expeditiously by the State Government. The Court held that the unexplained delay of over 100 days in considering the representation vitiates the detention order as it infringes the fundamental right under Article 22(5) to have the representation considered without delay. (Paras 3-6) B) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Representation - Article 22(5) of Constitution of India - The Court reiterated that the right to make a representation under Article 22(5) is a constitutional right and the detaining authority must consider it as expeditiously as possible. Any unexplained delay, unless satisfactorily explained, renders the continued detention illegal. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the detenu's representation by the State Government renders the continued detention illegal and violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Court quashed and set aside the detention order dated 17.05.2022 and directed the petitioner to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- Delay in considering representation
- Article 22(5) of Constitution
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act 1981
- Right to make representation
- Unexplained delay renders detention illegal
