MANSUKHLAL DEVRAJBHAI TILWA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. D.M. Thakkar for M/s Thakkar Associates for the petitioner, Mr. Jani learned AGP for respondent no.1 State of Gujarat and Ms. Davawala, learned counsel for respondent no.4 Union of India. Considered the affidavits filed on behalf of detaining authority, State of Gujarat as well as Union of India.

(2.) The petitioner who is under preventive detention, has challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order of detention dated 14.5.2000 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Junagadh in exercise of powers conferred on her under sub-sec.(2) of sec.3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commoddities Act, 1980 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). While arriving at a subjective satisfaction, the detaining authority has observed that the petitioner is involved in black marketing activities and has also been found involved in such activities which may hamper the maintenance of supply of wheat distribution through Fair Price Shop outlets.

(3.) The impugned order of detention is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds, but learned counsel Mr. D.M. Thakkar appearing for the petitioner detenu has confined his arguments mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the order of detention is passed without proper application of mind and in haste and, therefore, authorities have even not cared to supply relevant documents which were required to be supplied as observed by this Court ( Coram : M.R.Calla, J ) in a decision in the case of Koli Sureshbhai Balabhai Parmar v/s District Magistrate, Bhavnagar & Others, reported in 2000(2) GLH 540. Secondly, it is submitted that the representation made by the detenu to the detaining authority as well as to the Union of India, is not considered expeditiously and delay caused in considering the same should be held to be fatal and order revoking order of detention ought to have been passed in light of the representation made by the petitioner at the earliest. Learned counsel Mr. Thakkar has mainly argued ground (m) of the petition before this Court. I would like to refer the same to appreciate the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Thakkar in this behalf. Ground (m) reads as under :-