JUDGMENT : M.W. Chandwani, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges detention order of her son dated 02.06.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 - District Magistrate, Wardha under section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Dangerous persons, video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (Amendment of 2015) (for short, ‘MPD Act’). The petitioner also lays to challenge the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 - State of Maharashtra. 3. Necessary facts which gives rise to present petition can be stated as under: A proposal was initiated to detain the detenu by invoking provisions of Section 3(2) of the MPD Act alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner was a dangerous person in the area falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Wardha City. The detenu is involved in dangerous criminal activities. Number of criminal cases have been registered against him at Police Station, Wardha City from 2012 till 2021. After considering the criminal cases registered for last five years and in-camera statement ‘A’ and ‘B”, the learned Sub-District Magistrate held that he was subjectively satisfied that despite of preventive actions against the detenu he is continuously indulged in committing heinous crime and breach of orders and ultimately disturb the public peace and order; and held him as a ‘dangerous person’ as defined under the provisions of MPD Act and passed impugned order of detention, which is under challenge in this petition. 4. Though, there are other grounds raised in the petition, Mrs. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on the ground that the petitioner's representation was not considered by Respondent no.1, the State Government, expeditiously, thereby infringed his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The detenu has independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India requesting for his release. It was imperative on the respondent no. 1, to consider the said representation within reasonable dispatch and to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. But, in the present case, though the representation was made on 04.07.2023 to the Superintendent of Jail, Amravati but the State Government did not dispose of within reasonable dispatch. It was imperative on the respondent no. 1, to consider the said representation within reasonable dispatch and to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. But, in the present case, though the representation was made on 04.07.2023 to the Superintendent of Jail, Amravati but the State Government did not dispose of within reasonable dispatch. There is an inordinate and unexplained delay caused by the State in considering and deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 04.07.2023. Therefore, according to her, the detention order was vitiated and was liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Shri Doifode, learned APP appearing on behalf of State vehemently submitted that the representation made by the detenu dated 04.07.2023 to the Jail Authority, Amravati has been forwarded to the State Government. The Advisory Board has given opinion and said opinion of Advisory Board has referred to the State Government. The Advisory Board issued notice to the detenu and heard him through Video Conferencing and after receipt of the confirmation order of the State Government on 17.07.2023 representation of the detenu has been rejected. According to learned APP Shri Doifode, the representation of the petitioner was duly considered by the State Government within possible time and rejected it. Hence, he submitted that the petition has no merit and required to be dismissed. 6. Since the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu by the State Government is raised, therefore, few dates are relevant for deciding the present petition. The detention order was passed by the authority on 02.06.2023 i.e. within five days from the date of actual detention. The order was approved by the Government on 03.06.2023. Reference was made to the Advisory Board on 12.06.2023. The order of detention was confirmed by the Government on 17.07.2023. In the meantime, the detenu made a representation dated 04.07.2023 to the Government through the Superintendent of Jail. The District Magistrate sent the representation to the State Government on 10.07.2023. The representation was decided by the State Government on 26.07.2023. Thus, there is delay of 16 days in deciding the representation by Respondent no.1. 7. We shall now examine the preposition of law relating to delay in consideration and disposal of the representation of a detenu with reference to the judicial pronouncements. There is line of the decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with in this aspect of law, which shall make reference to few. 7. We shall now examine the preposition of law relating to delay in consideration and disposal of the representation of a detenu with reference to the judicial pronouncements. There is line of the decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with in this aspect of law, which shall make reference to few. 8. In a decision in the case of Rama Dhondu Borade Vs. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and others, (1989) 3 SCC 173 the Supreme Court in para 19 has held under : “19. The propositions deducible from the various reported decisions of this Court can be stated thus: The detenu has an independent constitutional right to make his representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Correspondingly, there is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu forwards his representation questioning the correctness of the detention order clamped upon him and requesting for his release to consider the said representation within the reasonable dispatch and to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. This constitutional requirement must be satisfied with respect but if this constitutional imperative is observed in breach, it would amount to negation of the constitutional obligation rendering the continued detention constitutionally impermissible and illegal, since such a breach would defeat the very concept of liberty - the highly cherished right - which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution” 9. In the case of Mahesh Kumar Chauhan alias Banit Vs. Union of India and others, (1990) 3 SCC 148 , relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court expressed its view in para 16, which reads thus : “16. Now the unchallengeable legal proposition that emerges from a host of decisions, a few of which we have referred to above, is that a representation of a detenu whose liberty is in peril and deprived should be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible; otherwise the continued detention will render itself impermissible and invalid as being violative of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution and if any delay is occurred in the disposal of a representation, such delay should be explained by the appropriate authority to the satisfaction of the Court” 10. In the case of R. Paulsamy Vs. Union of India and another, 1999 Cri.LJ. 2897 the Supreme Court in para 5 has held as under : “5. Mr. In the case of R. Paulsamy Vs. Union of India and another, 1999 Cri.LJ. 2897 the Supreme Court in para 5 has held as under : “5. Mr. Jain has placed reliance on a decision of this Court (rendered by one of us Nanavati, J.) in Venmathi Selvam (Mrs.) v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. MANU/SC/0398/1998 : [1998] 3 SCR 526. This Court held that though the delay was not long, it had remained unexplained and further though the delay by itself was not fatal, the delay which remains unexplained would be unreasonable. It was further observed that inspite of this well settled legal position, the State Government failed to explain satisfactorily that it had not dealt with the representation of the detenu as promptly as possible. The Court found in that case that representation was dealt with in routine manner and in view of indifference on the part of the Government the continued detention of the detenu was held to be illegal.” 11. In the case of Rashid Kapadia Vs. Medha Gadgil and others, (2012) 11 SCC 745 the Supreme Court in para 13 has observed as under : “13. It is well settled that the right of a person, who is preventively detained, to make a representation and have it considered by the Authority concerned as expeditiously as possible, is a Constitutional right under Article 22(5). Any unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the representation is held to be fatal to the continued detention of the detenu. The proposition is too well settled in a long line of decisions of this Court. We do not think it necessary to examine the authorities on this aspect, except to take note of a couple of Judgments where the principle is discussed in detail. They are; Mohinuddin alias Moin Master v. District Magistrate, Beed and Ors. MANU/SC/0121/1987 : (1987) 4 SCC 58 and Harshala Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 12 SCC 211 .” 12. It will be profitable to make reference of Harish Pahwa Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1981) 2 SCC 710 in para 5 the Supreme Court has held as under : “5. In our opinion, the manner in which the representation made by the appellant has been dealt with reveals a sorry state of affairs in the matter of consideration of representations made by persons detained without trial. State of U.P. and others, (1981) 2 SCC 710 in para 5 the Supreme Court has held as under : “5. In our opinion, the manner in which the representation made by the appellant has been dealt with reveals a sorry state of affairs in the matter of consideration of representations made by persons detained without trial. There is no explanation at all as to why no action was taken in reference to the representation on 4th, 5th and 25th of June, 1980. It is also not clear what consideration was given by the Government to the representation from 13th June, 1980 to 16th June, 1980 when we find that it culminated only in a reference to the Law Department, nor it is apparent why the Law Department had to be consulted at all. 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 emphasise 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. We order accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith.” 13. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional. We order accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith.” 13. Now, the unchallengeable legal proposition that emerges from a host of decisions, a few of which we have referred to above is that a representation of a detenu whose liberty is in peril and deprived should be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible; otherwise the continued detention will render itself, impermissible and invalid as being violative of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution. If any delay is occurred in the disposal of a representation, such delay should be explained by the appropriate authority to the satisfaction of the Court. 14. Reverting to the fact of the present case as submitted by Mrs. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, except mere mentioning that representation was forwarded to the Respondent no.1, State on 10.07.2023, which was received by the Respondent no.1. There is no explanation as to why from 10.07.2023 till 26.07.2023 the representation was not decided by Respondent no.1. There is absolutely no explanation as to why such delay had occurred. In the absence of any explanation wink at or skip over or ignore such an infringement of the constitutional mandate and uphold an order of detention merely on the ground that the enormity of allegations made in the grounds of detention is of very serious nature, and it will vitiate the detention order. Therefore, we have no other option except to allow this petition on the ground that this undue and unexplained delay is in violation of the constitutional obligation enshrined in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the impugned order invalid. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the respondent no.2 the District Magistrate, Wardha, so also order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 and direct the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required for some other cause. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute.