NIKHIL SURESH RAJPUT Vs. DIST. MAGISTRATE JALGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged detention order dated 21.12.2021, passed by the Respondent No. 1- District Magistrate, Jalgaon, whereby the petitioner has been detained under the provisions of 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 (MPDA Act). The said detention order along with grounds of detention and documents relied upon by the respondent No.1 were served upon the petitioner. He filed his representation against the same, which stood rejected and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. On 08.02.2021, this Court issued notice to the Respondents. Upon replies being filed by the Respondents, this petition was finally heard on 24.03.2021.

(2.) Ms. Jayshree Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised three grounds to challenge the aforesaid detention order. The learned counsel invited attention of this Court to ground 'G' in the Writ Petition and submitted that there was inordinate delay in consideration and disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner, thereby violating his valuable right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submitted that the representation was preferred on 05.01.2021 and rejection of the same was communicated to the petitioner after a month on 05.02.2021. Attention of this court was invited to the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-State to highlight the fact that the representation of the petitioner dated 05.01.2021 was received in the Special Branch of the State for consideration as late as on 18.01.2021. The further processing of the same also took considerable amount of time, thereby violating the valuable right of the petitioner. In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Dhondu Borade Vs. V.K. Saraf (1989) 3 SCC 173, Harish Pahwa Vs. State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 710 and Mahesh Kumar Vs. U.O.I. (1990) 3 SCC 148.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner then emphasized upon ground 'F' in the petition, to contend that since translated copies of judicial orders and other documents were not provided to the petitioner, his right to make an effective and purposeful representation guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India was violated. Attention of this Court was invited to Exhibit 'H' filed along with the Writ Petition, which pertained to judicial orders and other documents, translations of which were not provided. According to the learned counsel, this was fatal to the detention order issued by Respondent No.1. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hadibandhu Das Vs. District Magistrate AIR 1969 SC 43, Nainmal Shah Vs. U.O.I. AIR 1980 SC 2129 and Ibrahim Ahmad Batti Vs. State of Gujarat (1982) 3 SCC 440.