S.RATNAVEL PANDIAN - (1.) BY this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the son of the detenu, Bhogilal Manilal Parmar challenges the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 27-2-1989 passed against the detenu by the detaining authority (the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City) in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act of 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Vadodara City. For reaching the subjective satisfaction as to the necessity of making this order on the basis that the detenu is a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detaining authority has relied upon four criminal cases in which the detenu is said to have been involved and the statements of four witnesses showing that the detenu along with a band of his associates armed with weapons has been unleashing terror thereby creating an atmosphere of insecurity in the area of Vadodara City which activities of the detenu adversely affected the maintenance of public order.
(2.) THE main thrust of the arguments advanced by Mr. P. H. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner is of two folds : - 1. Relying on the decision of this Court in Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. N. L. Kalna, (1989) 1 JT 572 : (AIR 1989 SC 1234) it has been submitted that this order of detention under challenge is vitiated on the ground that the detaining authority has taken into consideration some of the grounds of an earlier detention order passed against this detenu on 1-7-87 under the provisions of the Act for drawing his requisite subjective satisfaction notwithstanding the earlier detention had been quashed by the High Court of Gujarat by its Order dated 4-4-88. 2. On the strength of the decision in Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. THE Police Commr. Judgments Today (1989) 1 JT 580 : (AIR 1989 SC 1282) it has been urged that the impugned order of detention suffers from the vice of non-application of mind of the detaining authority, rendering the order of detention invalid. For evaluating and appreciating the above two contentions we shall now reproduce the list of cases as shown in the table in the grounds of detention which have been considered by the detaining authority for drawing his subjective satisfaction :- JUDGEMENT_124_4_1989Html1.htm According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the then Commissioner of Police, Vadodara city passed an order of detention dated 1-7-87 under Section 3(2) of the Act against this detenu in which the first two criminal cases, mentioned under Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 of the above table, formed the basic materials along with others for reaching the subjective satisfaction and the said earlier detention order was quashed by the Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated 4-4-1988 and therefore the subjective satisfaction drawn by the detaining authority in the present case placing reliance on the same materials of the earlier case, though withsome more additional materials vitiates the present detention order. In support of this contention, a copy of the earlier detention order is filed in addition to the specific averment in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, stating that the detaining authority has considered the basic materials of the earlier detention order that had been quashed and as such this impugned order is liable to be set aside in the light of the decision of Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar's case (AIR 1989 SC 1234).
(3.) IN this connection, iti s represented by Mr. Parekh that a copy of the rejoinder has been served on the learned counsel for the respondent much earlier to the hearing of this Writ Petition. Be that as it may. the respondents have not filed arty counter to the rejoinder either denying the averments or affording any explanation. On going through the earlier order of detention vis-a-vis the above table, we find that the cases mentioned under. Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 were the parts of the basic materials in the earlier order of detention passed on 1-7-1987.;