JAYANTILAL GANPATLAL PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.H.R.Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.H.L.Jani, learned AGP on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mrs.P.J. Dawawala, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4.

(2.) In the present petition, the order of detention dated 11th May, 2001 is challenged by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order of detention has been passed by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 3[2] of the PBM Act. The present petitioner has been detained at Bharuch Jail as Class II detenu. The grounds of the detention are communicated and supplied to the petitioner as provided under Section 8[1] of the Act. The respondent - State has filed affidavit in reply and the detaining authority has also filed and the the respondent No.4 has also filed two affidavit in reply dated 22nd June, 2001 and the second affidavit is without date. Learned advocate Mr.H.R.Prajapati has challenged the detention order on various grounds but according to him, one or two contentions are enough to vitiate the order of detention. A specific contention has been raised by the petitioner in ground [g] to the effect that the representation dated 22nd May, 2001 sent by the petitioner by registered post addressed to the Hon'ble Minister, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Department which has been received by the concerned Minister but despite this, the representation remained pending with the respondent No.4 and the same was not considered in time. Thus, there was a delay in considering the representation dated 21st May, 2001 and therefore, legal right of the present petitioner of making an effective representation under Article 22[5] of the Constitution has been violated. In short the submission of Mr.Prajapati is that the representation dated 22nd May, 2001 addressed to the Hon'ble Minister of the concerned Department which has been received by the concerned Minister on 28th May, 2001 remained pending upto 18th June, 2001 and thereafter the representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.4 on 26th June, 2001 and the same has been communicated to the petitioner on 27th June, 2001. Therefore, there is no explanation of the respondent No.4 for the period from receiving the representation dated 28th May, 2001 upto 18th June, 2001. Therefore, not to decide the representation in time which adversely affected the legal right and violated the mandatory provisions of Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India. Learned advocate Mr.H.R.Prajapati has also relied upon decisions of the Apex Court reported in 1993 [Suupl] [2] SCC 341, 1995 [2] GLR 1596 and one more unreported decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4082 / 2000 dated 29th June, 2000 [ Coram : Mr.Justice R.P.Dholakiya, J.].

(3.) Learned AGP Mr.H.L.Jani, appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances as also the materials on record, the order of detention has been rightly passed by the detaining authority. There were compelling circumstances and there was no other option except to pass the detention order, otherwise, the activities which were carried out by the petitioner, could have adversely affected the public, therefore, according to him, the order of detention is legal and valid and in such circumstances, no interference is required by this Court.