Niranjan Sanjay Gotarane v. Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad & Ors.

(1) Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning Detention Order dated 29th December 2023 bearing OW. No./ PCB/DET/231/2023, Pimpri Chinchwad, passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 3(2) of The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Blackmarketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short, “MPID Act”), directing detention of Petitioner.

1.1) Record indicates that, along with the Detention Order, Committal Order and Grounds of Detention of even date are also served upon the Petitioner and the Petitioner is detained in the Yerwada Central Prison. (2) Heard Ms. Tripathi, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Gavand, learned A.P.P. for Respondents-State. Perused entire record produced before us and Affidavit-in-Replies filed by the Respondents. (3) At the outset, we may note here that, through the Petitioner has taken various grounds in the Petition for assailing the impugned Detention Order, learned Advocate for Petitioner restricted her arguments to the Ground

(c) of the Petition. In Ground (c), Petitioner has stated that, though he submitted his representation dated 17th January 2024 to the Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison, Pune for forwarding it to the State Government for its expeditious consideration, the same was decided on 8 February 2024, i.e. after lapse of about 18 days. That, there is unexplained delay at the behest of Respondents in consideration of said representation, which has caused detention of the Petitioner unconstitutional and therefore the impugned Detention Order may be quashed and set aside by allowing the Petition. (4) Per contra, Mr. Gavand, learned A.P.P. for Respondents-State submitted that, the concerned Authorities have satisfactorily explained delay in deciding the representation of Petitioner. He submitted that, there were four public holidays during the said period and after excluding the said four holidays, the representation of Petitioner has been decided without delay in that behalf. He therefore submitted that, there are no merits in Petition and prayed that, the Petition may be dismissed. (5) Perusal of record indicates that, Mr. Sunil Dhamal, Superintendent of Yerwada Central Prison in his Affidavit dated 24th February 2024, has submitted that, the representation of Petitioner dated 17th January 2024 addressed to the Advisory Board was received in his Office on 19th January 2024 and the same was forwarded by his Office to the concerned Authority on 20th January 2024. (5.1) Mr. Anil E. Kulkarni, Joint Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in his Affidavit dated 12th March 2024 has made feeble attempt to explain the delay caused in deciding representation of Petitioner. It is stated that, the representation of Petitioner dated 20th January 2024, was received by Special Branch-3B Desk on weekly holiday i.e. 20th January 2024 (Saturday) through Yerwada Central Prison. As being holidays on 21st January 2024 (Sunday) and 22nd January 2024 (Ram Mandir Consecration), therefore the remarks were called for from the Detaining Authority, i.e. Respondent No.1 on 23rd January 2024. That, remarks of Detaining Authority were received on 7th February 2024 vide its letter dated 7th February 2024. That, the said remarks were endorsed by the concerned Assistant Section Officer, who in turn, forwarded it to the Joint Secretary (In-charge) on the same day. That, the Joint Secretary endorsed it and forwarded the same on 8th February 2024 itself to the Respondent No.2, i.e. Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Maharashtra. That, Respondent No.2 considered the said representation along with all other records, rejected the representation of Petitioner on 8th February 2024 itself. (5.2) The aforesaid facts are derived from the Affidavits of the said two Respondents and are admitted facts on record. It may be noted here that, delay in considering representation of the Petitioner between 21st January 2024 to 7th February 2024, has not been properly explained by the said two Authorities. (5.3) Mr. Vinoy Kumar Chobey, Commissioner of Police, Pimpri Chinchwad, District Pune (Respondent No.1-Detaining Authority) has filed an Affidavit dated 2nd April 2024 in response to the Petition. In para No.9 of the said Affidavit, he has dealt with Ground (c) raised in Petition. A bare perusal of the said paragraph would clearly indicate that, the Detaining Authority has not at all explained the said delay on its part, least to say, has not offered any satisfactory explanation from 21st January 2024 till 7th February 2024 in forwarding its remarks to the Joint Secretary of Respondent No.1. (5.4) Even if the contention of Respondent No.1 is accepted, that there were four non-working days/public holidays from 21st February 2024, then also, the delay in considering representation of Petitioner from 21st February, 2024, has not been properly explained by any of the Authorities and the said delay of 16 days has remained totally unexplained. (6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harish Pahwa Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1126, in para No.3, has held as under:- “3. … …. … Again, we fail to understand why the representation had to travel from table to table for six days before reaching the Chief Minister who was the only authority to decide the representation. We may make it clear, as we have done on numerous earlier occasions, that this Court does not look with equanimity upon such delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other departments, seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such vital import. We would emphasis that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional.” (6.1) The principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harish Pahwa Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), are squarely applicable to the case in hand. As noted earlier, there is an unexplained delay of 16 days in deciding the representation of the Petitioner by the Respondents. Therefore, the constitutional right of the Petitioner under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, is definitely affected and therefore the Detention Order is vitiated. The continued detention of the Petitioner is therefore illegal and constitutionally impermissible and is liable to be quashed. (7) Hence, following Order:-

(i) Detention Order dated 29th December 2023 bearing OW. No./

PCB/DET/231/2023, Pimpri Chinchwad, passed by Respondent No.1-Commissioner of Police, Pimpri-Chinchwad, is quashed and set aside.

(ii) Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (b).

(iii) Detenu - Niranjan Sanjay Gotarane be released from Jail forthwith, on production of an authenticated copy of the Operative Part of present Order, if not required in any other case/cases.

(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

VASANT CHITTEWAN