ARVIND AJAYPALSING SHEKHAWAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of the detention being No. PCB/DTN/PASA/102(A)/2020 dated 24.01.2020 passed against the petitioner under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 [hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act of 1985] by respondent no.2 in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act of 1985.

(2.) Mr. H.R.Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the basis of passing the detention order is Two FIRs registered against the petitioner. So far as the first FIR is concerned, the same has been registered on 06.04.2017 and the petitioner has been released on bail on 10.04.2017. While, the second FIR has been registered on 24.08.2019 wherein, the petitioner has been released on bail on 26.08.2019. It is submitted that, there is a delay of almost close to three years and in another FIR, there is a delay of almost five months in passing the detention order. It is further submitted that it is well settled proposition of law that inordinate and unreasonable delay in passing the detention order against the detenue vitiates the detention itself. Reliance is placed on the judgement in case of A. Mohammed Farook vs. Jt. Secretary to G.O.I. And ors reported in (2002) 2 SCC 360. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention; moreover, the detaining authority has not explained the delay in passing the order. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority gets vitiated and the detention order dated 24.01.2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count alone.

(3.) Mr. Aakash Chhaya, learned AGP supported the order of detention passed by the detaining authority on the ground that no error has been committed by the detaining authority in arriving at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of material available on record. It is submitted that the material available on record is sufficient enough to brand the petitioner as dangerous person within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Act of 1985. It is further submitted that as can be seen, the petitioner is a habitual offender and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority, is in right earnest. The order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the detaining authority deserves to be confirmed and the petition deserves to be rejected.