BHIKHABHAI THAKORBHAI PATEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SURAT CITY
LAWS(GJH)-1988-9-15
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 14,1988

BHIKHABHAI THAKORBHAI PATEL Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SURAT CITY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KALUBHAI ALABHAI VANKAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1998-12-100] [RELIED UPON]
AMARBHAI KANJIBHAI NAYAK VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD CITY [LAWS(GJH)-1999-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
Ahonyammal VS. Secretary to Government [LAWS(MAD)-2002-7-92] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

KAPADIA, J. - (1.)The petitioner-detenu has filed the present petition challenging the legality and validity of the detention order passed against him by the Commissioner of Police Surat City on 12-12-1987 on his satisfying with respect to the present petitioner that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Sangrampura under the limits of Athwa Lanes Police Station it was necessary to make the order directing him to be detained and accordingly exercising the powers conferred on him under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 has passed the order of detention against him.
(2.)The order of detention as also the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on the same day i. e. 12-12-1987. On perusal of the grounds it appears that there are eight cases filed against the petitioner under the Prohibition Act wherein large quantities of country liquor mere seized. There are also statements of three witnesses recorded on 9-12-1987 and 10-12-1987. 3 Mr. M. C. Kapadia learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before us:
(1) That the activities of the petitioner referred to in the grounds of detention relates to law and order situation and not public order and therefore the detention orders bad and illegs.

(2) That the order of detention is perverse inasmuch as it is passed in mala fide exercise of the powers by the detaining authority.

(3) That the allegations made and conclusions reached in the grounds of detention are not from the basic facts. He has clarified that this ground pertains to the inference drawn with regard to the communal riots. He further submitted that the date or basic material for the said inference was not supplied to the petitioner.

(4) That there is unexplained delay in considering representation of the petitioner by the State Government.

(5) That the statements of the witnesses referred to in the grounds are false fabricated and imaginary and therefore the said material should not have been relied on by the detaining authority.

(6) That the inferences drawn about the danger and damage to the life and property and that the petitioner is a head-strong person is without any material on record.

(7) That the order of detention is passed mechanically i. e. without veryfying the statements of the witnesses by calling them.

(8) That while considering the representation of the petitioner-detenu the State Government has not looked into the parawise remarks of the detaining authority.

(3.)So far as the first point with regard to public order is concerned it is submitted by Mr. Kapadia that assuming the statements of three witnesses recorded in the case to be correct it would disclose that the activities of the present petitioner would be at the most prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order and not the public order.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.