GORUMIYA NOORMIYA SHAIKH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SURAT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-4-3
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 18,1988

Gorumiya Noormiy Shaikh Appellant
VERSUS
The Commissioner Of Police, Surat City And Others Respondents




JUDGEMENT

J.P.DESAI - (1.)The petitioner who has been detained by the Commissioner of Police Surat City by an order dated 19-8-1987 under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has challenged the said order of detention on various grounds.
(2.)The order of detention is at Annexure A page 11 of the compilation while the grounds of detention are at Annexure C at pages 19 to 24 The grounds of detention show that the petitioner was involved in a number of prohibition cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act the first offence enumerated therein being dated 22-9-1985 while the last being dated 25-7-1987. The grounds of detention show that on account of the anti-social activities of the petitioner enumerated in the grounds of detention the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner was required to be detained and accordingly an order of detention has been passed The grounds of detention show that statements of several persons were recorded by the Police Inspector of Surat City and the said statements disclosed that after the commission of the alleged offence on 25-7-1987 the petitioner was indulging in anti-social activities and two instances one of 26-7-1987 and the other of 2-8-1987 are enumerated in the grounds of detention. The details of those statements are also given in the grounds of detention showing that even after the commission of the alleged offence on 25-7-1987 the petitioner had indulged in such activities showing that the petitioner was at large even after the commission of the alleged offence on 25-7-1987.
(3.)The first ground of challenge is that there was violation of Para. 19(2) of the Gujarat Conditions of Detention (Prevention of Anti Social Activities) Order 1985 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Order for the sake of brevity) in that the detaining authority after receiving the copy of the representation addressed of the State Goverment did not forward its remarks to the Government. It appears that the detenu addressed a representation dated 24-8-1987 to the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City the Additional Chief Secretary Home Department (Special) and the Honble Mr. Justice M B. Shah Chairman Advisory Board and the Jailor forwarded one copy of the same to the Commissioner of Police Surat City because the detaining authority was the Commissioner of Police Surat City and not Ahmedabad City. It appears that the Commissioner of Police passed an order on 30-8-1987 rejecting the said representation and intimated to the detenu about the same. it is an admitted position that the Commissioner of Police Surat City who was the detaining authority did not forward his remarks at any time to the Government as required by Para 19(2) of the Order. There was thus a clear breach of Para. 19(2) of the Order in the present case. The question is whether the continued detention of the petitioner has been adversely affected on account of the inaction on the part of the detaining authority in not forwarding its remarks to the Govern. ment as required by Para. 19(2) of the Order. It appears from the affidavit of Mr. Roy Chaudhary Deputy Secretary Home Department which is at page 67 of the compilation that the representation addressed to the Government was received in the Home Department on 25-8-1987 i.e. on the next day and it was considered and rejected on 29-8-1987 and therefore it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation on account of the inaction on the part of the detaining authority in not forwarding its remarks to the State Government as required by Para. 19(2) of the Order. The continued detention of the petitioner is therefore not vitiated on account of the aforesaid inaction on the part of the detaining authority. We would however like to impress upon the detaining authority that the detaining authority should have forwarded its remarks to the Government expeditiously as required by Para. 19(2) of the Order. The detaining authority of course after passing the order of rejection on 30-8-1987 forwarded a copy of the same to the State Government but that cannot be equated with forwarding the remarks to the State Government as required by Para 19(2) of the Order. The copy of the Order dated 30-8-1987 rejecting the representation by the detaining authority only shows that the detaining authority after taking into consideration the representation was pleased to reject the same after careful consideration. It does not disclose any comments on the part of the detaining authority so far as the grounds taken in the representation are concerned. The inaction on the part of the detaining authority in not complying with Para 19(2) of the Order cannot be justified for a moment. But as the State Government rejected the representation on 29-8-1987 and as there was no delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation on account of the inaction on the part of the detaining authority the continued detention of the petitioner is not in any way vitiated.
;


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