This petition challenges the detention order dated 03/04/2024 issued under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act, 1981, and its confirmation by the State on 12/04/2020. The petitioner argues against the detention on grounds of delay in passing the order, delay in forwarding the report to the State Government, delay in deciding the representation, and inconsistent in-camera statements. The court examined these grounds and found merit in the arguments concerning the delay in deciding the representation and the inconsistent in-camera statements. Consequently, the detention order was quashed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith.

1. Introduction

• Rule made returnable forthwith, heard finally with consent of both sides.
• Challenge to the detention order dated 03/04/2024 and its confirmation on 12/04/2020 under the MPDA Act, 1981.

2. Grounds of Detention

• Detention based on multiple criminal cases and two in-camera statements.
• Criminal cases listed include charges of theft, robbery, extortion, and arms act violations.

3. Grounds of Challenge

• Delay in passing the detention order.
• Delay in forwarding the report to the State Government.
• Delay in deciding the representation.
• Inconsistent in-camera statements.

4. Court's Analysis

a. Delay in Passing the Detention Order

• Petitioner argued 44 days delay from proposal to order, and over 3 months from the last offense.
• Court found no merit in this ground as the delay was satisfactorily explained by the detaining authority.

b. Delay in Forwarding the Report to the State Government

• Court referenced case law interpreting "forthwith" as reasonable time without undue delay.
• Detaining authority forwarded the proposal to the State Government within 3 days.
• Court found this to be within reasonable time.

c. Delay in Deciding the Representation

• Representation dated 29/04/2024, received on 03/05/2024, decided on 06/06/2024.
• Unexplained delay of 28 days in deciding the representation.
• Court held this delay violated the constitutional mandate, rendering the detention order invalid.

d. Inconsistent In-Camera Statements

• Variance between actual statements and their gist in the impugned order.
• Detaining authority admitted clerical/typing errors, indicating non-application of mind.
• Court found this to be a mechanical and careless issuance of the order, leading to its invalidation.

5. Conclusion

• Petition succeeded on grounds of delay in deciding the representation and inconsistent in-camera statements.
• Detention order dated 03/04/2024 and its confirmation quashed.
• Petitioner to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.