HABIBBHAI RAJUBHAI SINDHI MUSLAMAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 22.9.2000 of the District Magistrate, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar. The petitioner was ordered to be detained thereunder as dangerous person in exercise of the powers conferred under Section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985.

(2.) Manifold contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order aforesaid but as this petition deserves acceptance only on one ground it is not necessary as well as advisable to save judicial time of the court to refer, discuss and record finding on all those contentions. This petition was admitted on 22.9.2000 and despite of having sufficient time to their credit none of the respondent has cared to filed reply to the Special Civil Application. Consequence of nonfiling of reply to the Special Civil Application is very well known that the averments made therein stand uncontroverted and the same are taken to be correct. In para 14 of the Special Civil Application the following averments are made :-

(3.) These are the factual averments which are not controverted and the same are taken to be correct. So, it is the case where the petitioner complained that the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded in the criminal complaints which were made used of for the detention of the petitioner as a dangerous person have not been given and it results in deprival of his valuable right to make effective representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to some of the decisions of this court in support of his contention. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the respondent admitted that reply is not there and he is unable to say anything on the factual aspect of the matter. From the record of the case which is available with him he submits that this grievance made by the petitioner in his representation to the State Government and on receipt of the representation the State Government has directed the detaining authority to give to the petitioner copies of those documents. However, he fairly submits that as detaining authority has not filed reply and his record is also not with him, he is not in a position to say whether that direction of the State Government has been complied with or not.