IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7621 of 2001
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO
————————————————————–
NITINBHAI DHANSUKHLAL BHAGAT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
————————————————————–
Appearance:
1. Special Civil Application No. 7621 of 2001
MR PRASHANT MANKAD for Petitioner No. 1
MR NM KAPADIA for Petitioner No. 1
MR SS PATEL, AGP, for Respondents No. 1-3
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date of decision: 09/01/2002
ORAL JUDGEMENT
1.The Commissioner of Police, Surat City, Surat,
passed an order on the 17th July, 2001, in exercise of
powers under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of
Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (“PASA Act” for short),
detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the said
Act.
2.The detaining authority took into consideration
only one registered offence against the petitioner vide
C.R. No.5121 of 2001, D.C.B. Police Station, Surat and
statements of two anonymous witnesses recorded on the
23rd June, 2001 and verified on the 5th July, 2001 and
branded him as a bootlegger. The detaining authority
observed that the petitioner is required to be
immediately prevented from pursuing his activities, which
are detrimental to public order. The authority also
considered the possibility of resorting to less drastic
remedies and came to a conclusion that detention under
PASA Act is the only remedy that can be resorted to.
3.Learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.
Prajapati assails this order on the ground that the
offence is dated the 24th March, 2001 and the order is
passed on the 17th July, 2001 and, therefore, there is no
livelink. He further submitted that though the
statements of anonymous witnesses were verified on the
5th July, 2001, the order is passed only only the 17th
July, 2001, i.e. after 12 days. This delay in passing
the order even after the verification of statements of
witnesses has vitiated the impugned order of detention.
He, therefore, urged that the petition may be allowed.
4.Mr. S.S. Patel, learned Assistant Government
Pleader, has opposed this petition.
5.There is no dispute about the factual aspects.
The offence which is relied upon as a ground for
detention is of 24.3.2001 and, therefore, is a stale
incident which cannot form a valid ground for detention
as there is no livelink between the activities of the
detenu and the order of detention. So far as the
statements are concerned, thery were verified on 5.7.2001
and the order was passed on 17.7.2001, i.e. 12 days
after the verification. The delay in passing the order
after verification of the statements of the witnesses has
vitiated the subjective satisfaction recorded by the
authority that in order to immediately prevent the
petitioner from pursuing his illegall activities, he is
required to be detained under the PASA Act. This
petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed.
6.In the result, the petition is allowed. The
impugned order of detention dated the 17th July, 2001,
passed against the detenu is hereby quashed and set
aside. The detenu-Nitinbhai Dhansukhlal Bhagat is
ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required
in any other case. Rule is made absolute with no orders
as to costs.
7.Direct service is permitted.
[ A.L. DAVE, J. ]
gt