S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention dated September 17, 1988 passed by the detaining authority (the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city) clamping upon the petitioner (the. detenu herein) the impugned order of detention under sub -Section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Act, 1985 on the ground that he on the materials placed before him was satisfied that it was necessary to make this order of detention with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city and directed the detenu to be detained in Sabarmati Central Prison, In pursuance of the said order, the detenu has been detained in the aforesaid prison.
(2.) THE government approved the order of detention on September 21, 1988. The detenu submitted his representation dated September 22, 1988 to respondent 1 who by his order dated September 30, 1988 rejected the same. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) BEFORE adverting to the arguments advanced by Dr. Ghitale, on behalf of the detenu, we would like to produce the relevant portion of the grounds of detention which reads thus : ...As such you arc a dangerous person as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act, and known as dangerous person. As you with the aid of your associates create dangerous atmosphere in the said vicinity, you disturb public peace, maintenance and as such following offences were registered against you with police records, and in which you were arrested : Sl. Police Offence Section Decision No. Station Regd. No. 1 Sabarmati 140/81 324, 114 IPC Compromised February 16, 1982 2 Sherkotda 411/82 332, 323, 114 IPC P.T. 3 Sherkotda 412/82 IPC 147, 148 P.T. 149, 307 BP Act 135(1) 4 Sherkotda 452/85 IPC 302, 201, 34 Not proved 5 Sabarmati 346/87 IPC 302,109, 34 In the court While considering complaints in the above cases, Identification (Chehra Nissan) Register, and charge -sheets contents carefully, it is found that you, with the aid of your associates, in the said area, give theats to innocent people, and cause injuries to them by showing dangerous weapons that like acid, knife, sharp weapons. As such you commit offences punishable for causing injuries to human body and which are punishable in Indian Penal Code . . . . Dr Chitale, the learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the grounds of detention and the other relevant records, particularly the copies of the statements of witnesses on the basis of which the detaining authority has claimed to have drawn his subjective satisfaction for passing this impugned order of detention and raised various contentions inter alia contending: (1) The material and vital fact, namely, the acquittal of the detenu in the cases registered in Crime Nos. 411 and 412 of 1982 of Sherkotda Police Station as shown at serial Nos. 2 and 3 in the table appended to grounds of detention which fact would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make the detention order, has not been placed before the detaining authority and this non -placing and the consequent non -consideration of the said material likely to influence the minds of the detaining authority vitiates the subjective satisfaction and invalidates the detention order; (1) Leave apart, the non -disclosure of the names of the witnesses on whose statements the detaining authority placed reliance to draw his subjective satisfaction claiming privilege under Section 9(2) of the Act, the grounds of detention otherwise are vague or deficient and lacking details with regards to the names of the "associates', for the discloure of which no privilege could be claimed and hence it was not possible for the detenu in the absence of the names of the so called 'associates' to make an effective representation against the order of detention, the deprivation of which amounts to an infringement of the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; (3) Though the authority has mentioned in more than one place the words 'your associates' which fact evidently should have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in making this impugned order, the names of the associates are nowhere disclosed which fact would show either the authority did not know as to who the associates were or knowing the names of the associates, he has refrained from furnishing it to the detenu thereby disabling the detenu to make his effective representation; and (4) The materials placed before the detaining authority were hardly sufficient to draw any conclusion that the alleged activities of the detenu were detrimental to the "maintenance of public order".;