DIGANTSINH DAHYABHAI VAGHELA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Y.S.Lakhani, learned advocate for Mr.Pravin Gondaliya on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned AGP on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Ms.P.J.Dawawala, learned advocate for respondent No.3 - Union of India. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 21st February, 2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Junagadh District under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of detention has been passed b the District Magistrate, Junagadh District under Section 3[2] of the PBM Act. The present detenu has been detained in Baroda Jail as class-Ii detenu and the grounds of detention are communicated and supplied to the petitioner under Section 8[1] of the PBM Act. The respondent No.1 - detaining authority District Magistrate, Junagadh District has filed reply and the even on behalf of the State Government also, a reply has been filed so also Union of India has also filed reply against the present petition.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.Y.S.Lakhani has raised various contentions challenging the detention order but according to his submissions, one or two contentions are enough to vitiate the order of detention. Learned advocate Mr.Lakhani has submitted that looking to Para-9 at pg.22 of the grounds of detention, 5 books have been seized by the concerned authority at the time of inspection and same has been taken into account as relevant documents while passing the detention order against the present petitioner but the detaining authority has not supplied the xerox copy of all the original documents to the petitioner but at pg.101, an abstract of the these five books have been supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that supply of abstract amounts to non supply of documents to the present petitioner which was considered by the detaining authority at the time of passing the detention order. In short, his submission is that the petitioner is entitled to all the documents which have been considered and relied upon by the detaining authority. In abstract, all such documents are irrelavant and it amounts to non communication of the grounds of detention to the petitioner. He also pointed out that in absence of all the documents, the petitioner was not able to make an effective representation because after perusing all the documents, the petitioner could have made an effective representation and could have explained whether the documents are genuine or not, whether signature or any writing is proper or not, in other words, the petitioner could have challenged the documents if it had been supplied but mere supply of abstract of such documents was not enough but the petitioner ought to have been supplied with all the documents. He also submitted that if any statement of the petitioner or any other person has been obtained by the concerned authority and same has been relied upon, in such event, typed copy ought to have been supplied to the petitioner of such statements and in absence of the original documents or xerox copy of such documents, the detenu was not able to any specific answer or could not make effective representation challenging genuineness of such documents, whether writing made in such documents is correct or not and whether any writing is of a particular person or not and signature of particular person is or not and therefore, he submitted that all the documents which were relied upon, were required to be supplied to the petitioner, otherwise, it amounts to non communication of the grounds of detention because documents are the part of the grounds of detention and therefore, it ultimately violated provisions of Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India. Mr.Lakhani, learned advocate has also submitted that the petitioner has raised a specific contention to this effect in grounds [d] and [g] of the petition and therefore, he submitted that in absence of xerox of the actual documents so seized, the petitioner is not able to make an effective representation and therefore, the order of detention is required to be set aside. Learned advocate Mr.Lakhani has also relied upon three decisions of the Apex Court, which are referred as under :-

(3.) Learned AGP Mr.H.L.Jani, appearing on behalf of the respondents - State has submitted that there was sufficient compliance by the detaining authority while supplying the abstract of the five bill books to the petitioner and the petitioner could have made effective representation after considering the abstract of the five bill books. He submitted that contention which has been raised by the petitioner in para-[d], has been replied by the detaining authority to the effect that copies of the records are given to the petitioner and the petitioner has not demanded copies which were required by him and therefore, question does not arise of supplying him the copies. However, the detaining authority has further submitted in his reply in para-12 that the petitioner has made confessional statements before the authority, wherein he has clearly admitted that he is purchasing the diesel fro the pump of GFCS Ltd., Madhavad Port at the rate of Rs.17.50 ps. per liter and even as per his statement, he used to sell the said stock of diesel at the aforesaid rate and the said statement will be referred to and relied upon at the time of hearing of the application and accordingly, both statements were supplied to the petitioner in the grounds of detention. Therefore, according to submissions, learned AGP Mr.H.L.Jani that actual xerox copy of the documents which have been relied upon and referred by the detaining authority were not supplied to the petitioner but the abstract of such documents have been supplied and the same can be considered to be sufficient compliance by the detaining authority and taking into consideration such documents, the petitioner could have made an effective representation after consideration of such abstract supplied to him. Therefore, he submitted that there is violation of Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India and the order of detention has been rightly passed by the detaining authority which is legal and valid one and does not warrant any inference from this Court.