S.K.KESHOTE - (1.) Rule of respondent No.3 is not received back. The respondent No.3 is neither necessary nor proper party to this petition. None of his action or order is challenged nor he is concerned with the detention of the petitioner. He is only a jail authority where the petitioner would have been detained and as what it is stated, for communication of writ of the order passed in this case, this authority has been impleaded as a party. I fail to see any justification in this approach of the litigants. Where the court allows the petition, writ of the order has to be sent to the concerned jail where the detenu is detained and for this, the jail authority is not necessary or proper party to the petition. It is unnecessary burden of expenses to be borne by litigant by impleadment of this party as respondent. In view of this fact, it is not necessary to wait for receipt of service of notice of Rule of respondent No.3.
(2.) Challenge has been made by petitioner - Hasmukh alias Batlo Chandubhai Patel, detenu, at present detained in Bhavnagar Prison, Bhavnagar, by this petition under Article 226 of the constitution to the order dated 24.9.2000 of the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City, Vadodara, under which he was ordered to be detained as a `bootlegger'.
(3.) Manifold contentions have bene raised by learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the propriety, correctness and legality of this order but as this petition deserves acceptance only on one ground, no need to refer to all those contentions, consider and record findings thereon.;