JAHANGIRKHAN FAZALKHAN PATHAN Vs. POLICE COMMISSIONER AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has questioned in this writ petition the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention made on October 12, 1985 by the respondent No. 1 under sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedbad city. The petitioner was detained by the respondents and was served with the grounds of detention along with the documents mentioned therein on the very day of detention that is, October 12, 1985. The grounds of detention were in Gujarati.

(2.) THE . petitioner in the writ petition has stated that he was previously detained under the National Security Act, 1980 S.R. No. PCB/DTN/PASA/37/85 on May 23, 1985 and was released on June 28, 1985. The petitioner had been detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to in short, as PASA Act'. The said order was challenged by writ petition before the Gujarat High Court which quashed the same and the petitioner was released from detention. The main thrust of detention is that the detaining authority in addition to new facts has taken into consideration the earlier two detention orders as well as the grounds of detention referred to therein presumably for the purpose of arriving at his subjective satisfaction that in spite of the earlier detention order which was of course, quashed and set aside the detenu has been persistently continuing his anti -social activities and as such the order of detention was clamped. This has vitiated the impugned order of detention. Other challenges such as non -disclosure of names and addresses of four witnesses whose statements have been mentioned with the grounds of detention and have been served along with the grounds as well as he vagueness of the statements made in the grounds about the alleged criminal activities of the detenu have rendered the order illegal and bad as the petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation against the same.

(3.) THE relevant portion of the grounds is extracted here under :