PRAMOD TUKARAM PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of detention dated 13th March, 2002 passed by Respondent No.2 against the detenu i.e. Parvez Mazhar Hasan @ Parvez Hasan Shaikh. By the said order, the detenu came to be detained under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974.

(2.) WE have heard Mr.Maqsood Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although, in this writ petition, many grounds have been pleaded, Mr.Maqsood Khan has pressed only one ground before us i.e. ground No.(vi). The said ground briefly stated is that "the petitioner had preferred a representation dated 8.7.2005 and it was incumbent on the part of the authorities to dispose of the said representation expeditiously". The said ground has been replied in para no.6 of the affidavit dated 28th December, 2005 by Mr.Borade, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department. In the said affidavit, it is stated that representation dated 8.7.2005 was received on 4.8.2005. Parawise comments on the said representation were called from the sponsoring authority on the same day and it was received on 11.8.2005 late in the evening. Thereafter, concerned Assistant prepared detailed note on 29.8.2005. It is further stated that there were seven days holidays during the said period.

(3.) IN reply thereto, Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar, the learned A.P.P. has stated that further details have been furnished in relation to delay between 11.8.2005 to 29.8.2005 in the affidavit by Mr. Sharad Pawaskar, Under Secretary to the Home Department. We have perused the said affidavit. In the said affidavit, it is stated that on account of unprecedented rains in Mumbai on 26.7.2005 onwards the concerned Assistant could not attend the office till 17.8.2005 on account of disruption of train services and other difficulties on account of unprecedented rains. As far as period from 11.8.2005 to 17.8.2005 is concerned, we find that the said period would have to be excluded from consideration as the delay caused during this period was not on account of any negligence or callous inaction. There were unprecedented rains and the situation in the city was seriously disturbed during that period. Hence, the period from 11.8.2005 to 17.8.2005 would have to be excluded.