MAHENDRASINH PRABHATSINH VAGHELA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.B.C.Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 so also Ms.Parinda Dawawala, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government - respondent No.3. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order the detention order dated 23rd February, 2001 which actually effected on 27th February, 2001 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate, Junagadh District under the provisions of Section 3[2] of the PBM Act. The grounds of detention are communicated and supplied to the present petitioner under Section 8[1] of the PBM Act. The present petitioner has been detained in custody of District Jail Nadiad as Class-II detenu.

(2.) . Learned advocate Mr.B.C.Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised various contentions challenging the detention order but according to his submission, one or two contentions are enough to vitiate the order of detention. The first contention which has been raised by him that in pursuance of the detention order which has been passed against present petitioner, the petitioner who was employee of the Gujarat Fisheries Central Cooperative Association Limited has been suspended from service by order dated 27th February, 2001. Therefore, he submitted that after suspension, there was no scope for the petitioner to indulge into such illegal activities which is alleged against the present petitioner. This aspect has not been taken into account by the detaining authority while passing the detention order. Not only that this contention has been specifically raised by the petitioner in the representation dated 13th March, 2001 in para-7 of the representation. But while considering the representation, this contention of the present petitioner has not been taken into account by the concerned authority. The second contention which has been raised by the learned advocate Mr.B.C.Dave that along with grounds of detention, certain necessary papers which have been relied and relevant and considered by the detaining authority has not been supplied to the present petitioner. Therefore, it amounts to non supply of the grounds of detention to the petitioner and the same were supplied to the petitioner by letter dated 16th march, 2001 as per para-3 and therefore, he submitted that not to supply relevant documents which has been relied by the detaining authority while passing the detention order, which has adversely affected the right of the present petitioner for making effective representation under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he submitted that specific contention has been raised by the petitioner in para-7 of the petitioner. He also pointed out that even according to the statutory provisions of PBM Act, under sub-section [3] of Section 3, the detaining authority shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government about the order of detention along with such other particulars. Therefore also, the grounds of detention are not supplied in time and there was delay and therefore also the order of detention is required to be set aside. So far as suspension of the present petitioner being an employee, a specific contention has been raised by the petitioner in para-5 of the petition. Mr.B.C.Dave, learned advocate has relied upon three decisions of the Apex Court, which are as under :- [1] AIR 1981 S.C. 431 [2] AIR 1980 SC 1983 [3] 1999 SCC pg.593.

(3.) . Learned AGP Mr.H.L.Jani appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the detaining authority the District Magistrate - respondent No.1 has filed a detailed reply and the State Government has also filed a detailed reply to the present petition. Mr.H.L.Jani, learned AGP has submitted that in respect of the reply to para-5 pg.24, wherein the detaining authority has submitted suspension order has been passed by the competent authority under the Service Rules and therefore, the petitioner cannot be released from the detention. So far the contentions in para-7 of the petition, the detaining authority has in the reply has submitted that the order of detention has been passed after considering the documents and papers which were referred to and relied upon by him and after arriving at subjective satisfaction. He also submitted that grounds of detention have been supplied with all the relevant papers and documents running from pg.1 to 95 but pursuant to the demand of the petitioner dated 13th March, 2001, same has been supplied by letter dated 16th March, 2001 which has been received by the petitioner through the Jail Superintendent and confirmation has also been received by the detaining authority from the jail authority on date 19th March, 2001. Therefore, documents are required to be furnished as per the demand of the petitioner and accordingly, the same has been supplied to the petitioner. In light of this submission, learned AGP Mr.H. L.Jani has submitted that the grounds of detention has been supplied in time and on demand, subsequently also necessary documents have been supplied to the petitioner and therefore, there is no illegality in passing the orders of the detention and looking to the facts on record as well as the material which was placed before the detaining authority, the detaining authority has rightly passed the detention order which is legal and valid and therefore no interference of this court is required.