ORDER
S.D. Shah, J.
1. The petitioner detenu has by this petition challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 7th December, 1994, passed by the District Magistrate, Surat, Under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, on his being satisfied that detenu was a “dangerous person” within the meaning of the said term as defined by Section 2(c) of the said Act and that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, he was required to be detained. The grounds of detention duly formulated Under Section 9(1) of the said Act of even date are supplied to the detenu.
2. From the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu, it becomes clear that the detenu is resident of village Kathor. He is a very head strong person and he is communal minded. His activities have become more dangerous and horrendous after demolition of Babri Masjid in December, 1992 and he and his associates belonging to muslim community have created horror and terror in the minds of persons belonging to other religions. It is also alleged against the detenu that he was believing that damage was caused to the person and property of muslims while properties of hindus were not damaged and therefore from the border area with the help of head strong and influential people belonging to muslim community he was calling for dangerous substances and explosive substances with a view to making hand grenades and hand bombs. It was further alleged that by creating a systematic gang of muslims, he was manufacturing hand bombs or hand grenades and was supplying the same in the town of Surat and in the vicinity of Surat. It is further alleged that he was successful in getting such hand bombs exploded at Varachha road, near Gitanjali Cinema at Surat and he was also successful in creating an atmosphere of horror and terror by explosion of such hand bombs in Surat which resulted into extensive damage to the property and injury to the innocent citizens. It is further alleged against him that one of his associates was arrested and therefore the petitioner went underground and ultimately after three months he was arrested near border of Nepal. The detaining authority has thereafter set out offences in tabular form alleged to have been committed by the detenu under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code. The offences are punishable Under Sections 307, 120B, 124 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under various provisions of Explosives Substances Act and TADA. The detaining authority has based on the aforesaid material, recorded the notification that detenu was a “dangerous person” and that he was communal minded and was a headstrong person and was encouraging communal riots against Hindus. It was also satisfied that the detenu and members of his gang have created atmosphere of horror and terror at Village Kathor and in the area of Varachha road at Surat. The authority was, therefore, satisfied that it was necessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
3. From the gist of the aforesaid anti-social, dangerous and prejudicial activities of the detenu and more particularly his involvement in various offences, there is no manner of doubt that the detenu is a “dangerous person”, who habitually commits offences punishable under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code and further that he is possessing communal mind and is determined to act to the prejudice of the persons belonging to other religion, namely, Hindus. However, Mr. N.N. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the detenu has invited attention of the court to one of the documents supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. Such document is dated 30th November, 1994 and is described as “very confidential”. It is dated 30th November, 1994. It is written by District Superintendent of Police, Surat to District Magistrate, Surat. In such letter, it is stated that he was submitting proposal for detention of the detenu. He has thereafter referred to various prejudicial activities of the detenu. He has further stated in the letter that the entire anti-social activity of the detenu came to light when one of his associates, namely, Ishaque Noormohamad came to be arrested at a time of bomb explosion near Indira Avas. He has thereafter stated that detenu has gone underground over a period of three months and that he was arrested by Anti-Terrorist Squad only near Nepal Boarder. He has further stated that he has been released on bail since last 15 days and that he has once again started his 1 eadstrong anti-social and communal activities the eby creating panic, horror and terror in the minds of persons belonging to Hindu religion. In the last paragraph he has stated that from the statements of witnesses recorded, who have desired to be anonymous, it becomes clear that on coming 6th December, 1994, the activities of the detenu were likely to be more dangerous and there was every possibility that he might once again involve himself in communal activities and might once again create atmosphere of horror and terror. He has thereafter proposed that instead of taking an action against the detenu, he should be detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
4. It is submitted by Mr. N.N. Gandhi that the primary object of such letter was that detenu should not be out or free on 6th December, 1994. That day was a sensitive day as on 6th December, 1992, Babri Masjid was demolished and it was apprehended that detenu and persons belonging to Muslim community might act high handedly and might cause injury and damage to the persons and properties of Hindus. The primary purpose of sending the proposal was to see that order of detention is issued. However if one reads the last paragraph of the “confidential letter” impression is created that the District Superintendent of Police wanted that the detenu should be rounded off or should be taken into custody before 6th December, 1994, submits Mr. N.N. Gandhi. In fact, thereafter, within no time, the order of detention is passed and is served on the detenu on 7th of December, 1994. It is not disputed before this Court that the day of 6th December, 1994 passed over peacefully and no untoward incident took place in the town of Surat.
5. In the affidavit-in-reply which is filed by the District Magistrate, who has passed the order of detention and who has, for the reasons best known to him even supplied the copy of the “confidential letter” of sponsoring authority to the detenu that the order passed by him is not mala fide. He has further stated that simply because the day of 6th December, 1994 passed over peacefully without any untoward incident, it cannot be presumed that the detenu would not involve himself in dangerous activities. In his opinion, as stated in the affidavit, it would be of no consequence if a particular day would pass off peacefully or that no disturbance took place on such date. He has further stated in the affidavit that the detenu is habitual criminal and has serious antecedents which clearly show his tendency to commit crimes. He has further stated that his tendency to act above law as well as to commit serious crimes is established from the fact that he was absconding and could only be apprehended and arrested by the Anti-Terriorists Squad from near Nepal Border.
6. He has also emphasised the fact that at Gitanjali Cinema on 8th of January, 1993, explosion of bomb took place in the upper class of auditorium and the spectators who were in the auditorium, out of fear and danger to their life ran helter shelter. Number of spectators were injured and some parts of the Cinema Hall were also extensively damaged. For such activity, offence was registered against the detenu on 8th of January, 1993 but since he was absconding, he could only be arrested on 31st of August, 1993 by Anti-Terrorist Squad near Nepal border. The detenu was thereafter released on bail on 11th of November, 1994 on his executing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-. He has further emphasised the fact that the another offence on 28th of January, 1993 when two innocent girls in the age group of 10 years were standing at Mini Bazaar, Varacch Road and when they were waiting for rickshaw, one rickshaw passed by those girls and one of the two passengers from the said rickshaw threw explosive substance and there was a big explosion which very seriously injured the two girls. The persons travelling in rickshaw fled from the spot by very rickshaw. A large number of persons from that locality chased the rickshaw and ultimately from a bus going through Kathor, one Muslim was taken out. The crowd thereafter started beating him and despite all attempts made by the police to disperse the crowd, the atmosphere in the locality became tense and surcharged with fear and apprehension. In the offence registered, at Varachha Police Station, the detenu was found to be involved but since then he was absconding, he could only be arrested on 20th August, 1994 and ultimately he came to be released on bail on 11th of October, 1994. Thirdly he has emphasised the fact that on 4th of February, 1993 at village Antroli in the locality known as “Indira Awas” one Sahbir Bhaththu and other persons were involved in illegally and unauthorisedly collecting explosives and they were trying to manufacture crude bombs and at that time big explosion has taken place resulting into making the atmosphere surcharged with fear and apprehension. In this offence also, the detenu was involved. He has further stated that immediately after the release of the detenu on bail in the month of November, 1994 he has once again started his illegal acitivity of collecting explosive substances and of making crude bombs. In this connection, statements of three witnesses are recorded. They have stated that immediately after being released on bail the detenu has formed a gang of persons of his religion and has started the activity of manufacturing the crude bomb. The witnesses have also stated that the detenu was stating to the members of his gang that on or after 6th December, 1994 all necessary action will be taken to finish Hindus by bomb explosion and to demolish all their temples. In fact, one of the witnesses has stated that he was asked by the detenu and his associates to supply to him necessary explosive substances so that crude bombs can be manufactured in large quantity. Since 6th December, 1994 was fast approaching and since detenu has become very active after his release on bail in the month of November, 1994, the proposing authority has clearly stated that proposal was for detention of the detenu Under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. He has also emphasised the fact that since his involvement in all offences was clearly established by statement of one of his associates, who was arrested, the detenu went underground and could not be arrested for a long period of over eight months and ultimately he was arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Squad from near Nepal border. The very fact that he was absconding from the town of Kathor after his involvement in such serious and heinous crimes and the very fact that person of his gang, namely, has clearly named detenu as a person involved in the aforesaid offences and further fact that number of witnesses have stated about his future plan of resorting to large scale bombing at Surat against Hindus and their places of worship would require the order of detention and that the District Police Superintendent therefore recommended that detenu should be detained preferably before 6-12-1994. The detaining authority has further stated that order of detention was passed with a view to immediately preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He has further stated that looking to the nature of the dangerous activities of the detenu and the seriousness of the offences registered against him as well as preparation made by him immediately after his release on bail for undertaking further series of bomb blast at Surat establish the need of his detention.
7. On going through the letter dated 30th November, 1994, which is proposal by District Superintendent of Police to the detaining authority, this Court has no manner of doubt that the sponsoring authority intended that the order of detention should be urgently and as expeditiously as possible passed against the detenu preferably before 6th of December, 1993. He never wanted to propose that the detenu should be rounded off only on 6th of December, 1994. A careful reading of the proposal would leave no room for doubt that the proposal was for detention of the detenu and not for rounding him off. The submission of Mr. N.N. Gandhi therefore that the order is passed in bad faith or with mala fide exercise the power or that it goes beyond the proposal, is misconceived and cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected. Secondly Mr. N.N. Gandhi submits that the intimation of detention of the detenu was given to one Rafiq Mahemood Patel, brother of the detenu. On receipt of such intimation his brother has made representation to the detaining authority on 29th of December, 1994. He has submitted that such representation is either not considered or if considered, no intimation is sent to the brother of the detenu. In the further affidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining authority it is clarified that the representation made by the brother of the detenu dated 29th of December, 1994 was received in the dealing branch on 2nd January, 1995. The representation was placed before the detaining authority and since he required certain further details, the details were called for, which were received by him on 7th of January, 1995 and the representation was considered and rejected on 12th of January, 1995 and on the same day it was communicated to the detenu as well as his brother. The copy of the actual communication is shown to the Court and brother of the detenu or the detenu has not filed any further affidavit stating that they have not received such communication. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that representation of the brother of the detenu was not considered by the detaining authority. It is also not possible to accept the contention that there was delay in considering the representation. In my opinion, within a period of five days, the representation is considered and such period cannot be said to be unreasonably long period for considering the representation. I, therefore, do not find any substance in this submission also. Lastly it was submitted by Mr. N.N. Gandhi that Under Section 3 of the said Act, once an order of detention is made, the detaining authority shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made. Although no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 months after making of such an order unless in the meantime, it is approved by the State Government, in his submission, no such report was sent by the detaining authority to the State Government forthwith and, therefore, the continued detention of the detenu is bad in law. In the affidavil-in-reply filed by the detaining authority it is clearly stated that the report Under Section 3(3) was sent to the State Government on the very day i.e. on 7-121994 and that within five days thereafter i.e. 12th December, 1994 the State Government has approved the order of detention. In view of this affidavit-in-reply, there is no substance in this submission also and the same deserves to be rejected.
8. Aforesaid were the only submissions made before this Court and since this Court does not find any substance in any of the submissions made, the order of detention passed against the detenu is required to be upheld and is hereby upheld. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.