GOVINDSING PAPULSING TAK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The Petitioner / Detenu Govindsing Papulsing Tak has preferred this Petition questioning the preventive detention order passed against him on 22nd February 2019 by Respondent No. 1 - Commissioner of Police, Pune City. The said detention order has been passed under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug offenders, Dangerous persons and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPDA Act'). The said detention order has been issued as the Detenu is a Dangerous person whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The detention order is based on two Crimes i. e. C. R. No. 450 of 2018 registered with Swargate Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 394 , 323 , 504 , 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and another incident occurred on 19th December 2018 vide C. R. No. 403 of 2018 registered with Swargate Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354(A) , 324 , 451 , 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and two in-camera statements of witnesses 'A' and 'B', recorded on 07th January 2019 and 10th January 2019 respectively.

(3.) Though the number of grounds have been raised in the Umesh present petition whereby the detention order has been assailed, however, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner / Detenue has pressed only two grounds before us i. e. ground nos. 'c' and 'g'. Those grounds are reproduced herein below in verbatim. c. The Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has taken into consideration two criminal cases registered against the Petitioner on 06. 11. 2018 and 19. 12. 2018, whereas the order of detention is passed on 22. 02. 2019 belatedly. In order to fill up the gap of this delay two in-camera statements were recorded on 07. 01. 2019 and 10. 01. 2019. Thereafter, there are no cases. Thereby there is delay in passing the order after the last incident of in-camera statement. As a result, there is a delay of about seven weeks took place and the authority has not taken any prompt action to pass an order of detention immediately. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside. g. The Petitioner says and submits that a representation of the detenu was sent to the Superintendent, Yerwada Central Prison, Pune to obtain the signature of the detenu on his representation and for onward submission to the State Government for consideration expeditiously. The detenu has so far not received any intimation about the consideration of his representation, thereby the State Government has delayed in considering the said representation. The State Government is called upon to explain the said delay, if any, to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court failing which the continued detention will be held as illegal. The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be quashed and set aside.