BHARATBHAI RATANSINGH NINAMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed by the petitioner-detenu under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16th September, 2000 of District Magistrate, Dahod, under which he was ordered to be detained as a dangerous person, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.

(2.) . This petition was admitted on 20th of October, 2000 and more than 3 months have already been passed but none of the respondents has cared to file reply thereto. The consequences of non-filing of the reply to the Special Civil Application is well-known i.e., the averments made by the petitioner in the petition stand uncontroverted and are to be taken to be correct.

(3.) . Challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 16th September, 2000, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised manifold contentions, but as this petition deserves acceptance only on one ground, it is not necessary, nor advisable in the larger interest of saving of valuable and precious judicial time of the Court, to refer to those all contentions, consider and decide. It is contended that the last criminal complaint was registered against the petitioner on 22-3-2000, whereas this detention order has been made on 16th September, 2000 i.e., after more than 5 months and 15 days. For this delay in passing of this order, the respondents have not furnished any explanation whatsoever. Summing up his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that only on this ground the order of the respondent under which the petitioner was ordered to be detained as a dangerous person, deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made reference to certain decisions of this Court also. However, as the learned Counsel for the respondent has not raised any contention in respect of the law laid down by this Court in the decisions on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is not necessary to give details of those decisions also.