(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner-detenu has challenged his detention order dated 27-12-2003. By the said order, the petitioner is detained as a "bootlegger" under P.A.S.A. Along with the order of detention, petitioner is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, there is a reference about three criminal cases registered against the petitioner before Karelibaug Police Station. All these cases are registered under Bombay Prohibition Act. So far as last case is concerned, the same is registered on 25th December, 2003. Over and above those cases, the detaining authority has considered statements of two witnesses, whose names have not been disclosed to the petitioner. After satisfying itself subjectively, the detaining authority has passed the order of detention, which is impugned in this petition.
(2.) It is submitted by Ms.Dutta, learned advocate for the petitioner that the detaining authority has arbitrarily exercised powers under Section 9 (2) of the Act, by not disclosing names of so called secret witnesses. It is submitted by her that before exercising powers under Section 9 (2) of the Act, the detaining authority should have reached subjective satisfaction to the effect that the statements are required to be kept in secret in view of the public interest and while doing that exercise, the detaining authority was required to consider antecedents and character of the detenu and the witnesses. In this connection reference is made to the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in RANUBHAI BHIKHABHAI BHARWAD (VEKARIA) v. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2000 (3) GLR 2696.
(3.) Mr.A.Y.Kogje, learned AGP, submitted that the detaining authority has reached the subjective satisfaction and the authority has also recorded such satisfaction on the file by clearly mentioning that the detenu is a very high-handed person and if the names of witnesses are disclosed, it may put the life of such witnesses in danger.