SHAKUNTALA MOTIRAM PATIL Vs. K S SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed by the wife of the detenu, the order of detention dated 29.12.1995 detaining a person by name Motiram Padu Patil under the provisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981 is challenged.

(2.) THE grounds of detention accompanying the order of detention clearly show that the detenu is a bootlegger. THE petition raised several points of challenge. However, as in our opinion the challenge on the ground of delay in consideration of the representation by the State Government, in the facts and circumstances of the case, must succeed, we find it unnecessary to deal with other grounds.

(3.) SHRI Bagwe, learned Asst.Public Prosecutor submitted that the time formula should not be exclusively obsessive and unless there is supine indifference or calous negligence to attend to the representation, mere delay should not be considered as denial of the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. SHRI Bagwe further submitted that the additional affidavit explains the delay. SHRI Bagwe also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1990 SC 176 and paragraphs 37 and 38 in particular. Paragraph 38 of the said judgment reads as under:. "It is clear from the above statement that there was no laches or negligence on the part of the detaining authority or the other authorities concerned in dealing with the representation of the detenu. In Mst.L.M.S. Ummu Saleema v. B.B.Gujaral, (1981)3 SCC 317: (AIR 1981 SC 1191). it has been observed that the time imperative can never be absolute or obsessive, and that the occasional observations made by this court that each day's delay in dealing with the representation must be adequately explained are meant to emphasis the expedition with which the representation must be considered and not that it is a magical formula, the slightest breach of which must result in the release of the detenu. In the instant case, the detaining authority has explained the delay in the disposal of the representation made by the detenu and, accordingly the order of detention cannot be rendered invalid on that ground".