KANUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Sanjanwala for the petitioner and the learned AGP Mr. Jani for the respondents. In this petition under Article 226 of the the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention dated 12th December, 2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Valsad whereunder the petitioner has been ordered to be detained at the Porbandar Jail as Class II detenu. According to the grounds of detention communicated to the petitioner under section 9(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, the petitioner has been considered as bootlegger as defined u/s.2(b) of the PASA Act and in all, ten offences have been registered against the petitioner wherein the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in respect of each registered offences. It is pertinent to note that no statement of the secret witness has been recorded by the detaining authority. Looking to the facts of the offence registered against the petitioner, the petitioner is having licence at Daman for sale of foreign liquor and persons purchasing the liquor from him are selling the same in the limits of the State of Gujarat. I have personally verified each and every offence upto 10th. In each of the offence, specific allegation has been made that certain persons have purchased liquor from Shital Bar belonging to the petitioner and thereafter, said liquor has been sold within the limits of the State of Gujarat by some other persons whose names have been mentioned in the respective FIRs lodged against the petitioner. No offence has been registered against the petitioner that he himself is selling the liquor within the State of Gujarat. However, on the basis of the sale of foreign liquor by some other persons which was purchased by such persons from the petitioner from his licensed bar at Daman, the detaining authority has passed the order against the petitioner. Zerox Copy of the licence issued in favour of the petitioner for retail sale of Indian Made FOreign Liquor in Daman is on record from page 14 to 18. The last offence registered against the petitioner on these premises is dated 31st July, 2000 whereas the impugned order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority after a period of about five months on 12th December, 2000. No reply to the present petition.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Sanjanwala appearing for the petitioner has raised two contentions while challenging the impugned order of detention. The first contention raised by Mr. Sanjanwala is that there is delay in passing the impugned order of detention considering the last offence registered against him. The last offence registered against the petitioner is dated 31st July, 2000 whereas the impugned order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority on 12th December, 2000. There is, therefore, delay of about five months or so in detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (the PASA Act for short). Specific contention to that effect has been raised by the petitioner in ground (a) of the memo of petition. In support of this contention, Mr. Sanjanwala has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 1997 (1) GLH page 381.

(3.) In Ground (B) of the memo of petition, the petitioner has raised the following contentions :