MEHBOOBALI HUSSAINALI MUNI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Heard Mr.D.M.Thakkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.H.J.Jani, AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Ms.P.J.Davawala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4.

(2.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 1/06/2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Amreli under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the P.B.M. Act"). The present petitioner - detenu has been taken into custody at Rajkot District Jail as a Class-II detenu. The ground of detention has been communicated and supplied to the petitioner by the Detaining Authority under Section 8(1) of the P.B.M.Act. The Detaining Authority - District Magistrate has filed affidavit-in-reply and on behalf of respondent No.1 - the State Government, Mr.P.G.Vyas, Deputy Secretary to the Government Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department has filed affidavit-in-reply and on behalf of respondent No.4 Union of India has also filed affidavit-in-reply, which all have been taken on record.

(3.) Mr.D.M.Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority on 1/06/2001 on various ground, but according to him one contention is enough to vitiate the order of detention. Mr.Thakkar has submitted that page-(18) a representation submitted by Advocate of the detenu to the Detaining Authority has not been forwarded by the Detaining Authority to the State Government immediately and within the reasonable time and, therefore, the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Thakkar has pointed out that after receiving the representation, which has been forwarded by the Detaining Authority to the State Government. The State Government has taken time in deciding the representation, wherein there was a delay, which has not been explained by the State Government and, therefore, also the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside.