NAVINCHANDRA BHAGVANDAS GANDHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the four petitioners in these Special Civil Applications are co-detenus. These petitions have been filed against the detention orders passed against each of the petitioners under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The detention orders were passed against these petitioners so as to prevent them from black marketing essential commodities like petroleum solvents and acting in the manner prejudicial to the supply of essential commodities by the District Magistrate, Vadodara, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The grounds of detention were enclosed with the orders of detention. The necessary details are as under: @@@ SCA No. Name of detenu Date of Date of Date on which detention service of the detention order detention was approved order by State Govt. ------- --------------- --------- ---------- -------------- 5076/2000 Navinchandra 28th Apr. 8th May 9th May 2000 Bhagvandas 2000 2000 Gandhi 5078/2000 Jayendra @ 27th Apr. 8th May 8th May 2000 Jaggubhai 2000 2000 Nanbhai Khachar (Darbar) 5080/2000 Chandubhai @ 27th Apr. 8th May 8th May 2000 Manojbhai Mela- 2000 2000 bhai Nayak 5081/2000 Dinesh Gangaram 28th Apr. 8th May 9th May 2000 Patil 2000 2000 ----------------------------------------------------------------

(2.) These petitions challenging the respective detention orders were filed on 22nd May 2000 and the Rule was issued in each of these petitions on 23rd May 2000. In response to the Rule issued by this Court, affidavit-in-reply dated 27th June 2000 was filed by the Dy.Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat and further affidavit-in-reply dated 19th July 2000 was filed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara in Special Civil Application No.5076 of 2000. A counter affidavit purporting to be dated 27th June 2000 has also been filed on behalf of the Union of India in the Special Civil Application No.5076 of 2000. In Special Civil Application No. 5078 of 2000, an affidavit-in-reply dated 5th July 2000 has been filed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara and a counter affidavit dated 27th June 2000 has been filed on behalf of the Union of India and an affidavit-in-reply dated 21st July 2000 has been filed by the Dy.Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat. In Special Civil Application No. 5080 of 2000, an affidavit-in-reply dated 19th July 2000 has been filed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara and an affidavit-in-reply dated 26th July 2000 has been filed by the Dy.Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat. In Special Civil Application No. 5081 of 2000, an affidavit-in-reply dated 19th July 2000 as filed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara is on record.

(3.) When the matters came up before this Court on 4th August 2000, during the course of arguments it was found that despite the affidavits-in-reply which had been filed earlier by the respondents, the respondents failed to explain as to why the detention orders were not served immediately and therefore, time was granted to explain as to why the orders could not be served on time. The learned APP has filed an affidavit dated 10th August 2000 of the Dist. Supdt. of Police, Vadodara in Special Civil Application No. 5076 of 2000 seeking to explain the delay by saying that at the time when the detention order was passed on 28th April 2000, the petitioner was in judicial custody in Savli Sub-Jail and therefore, the opinion of the ld. Public Prosecutor in Savli Court was sought for on Sunday, i.e. 29th April 2000; on Monday, a request was made by the Public Prosecutor before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class for sending the petitioner to Surat Jail under the aforesaid detention order and it has been mentioned that the ld. Judicial Magistrate informed that the application be made before the Sessions Court, Vadodara. The application was moved before the Sessions Court, Vadodara on 8th May 2000 and on the very same day, the permission was granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara.