COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. FARUK IBRAHIM SHANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants ? original respondents have filed this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 23.01.2001 in Special Civil Application No.10274 of 2000 quashing and setting aside the detention order dated 08.09.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Police Surat City, Surat under the provisions of the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 and also awarding compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner and further directing the State Government to hold an inquiry through the Chief Secretary in the matter and whosoever was found responsible for not filing the reply in the matter, in the said inquiry, the said amount of cost was to be recovered from him.

(2.) THE appellants have also filed Civil Application No.8281 of 2001 praying for stay of operation, implementation and execution of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.10274 of 2000 on 23.01.2001.

(3.) IT is this order which is under challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants has submitted that the petition was admitted and allowed by the Learned Single Judge only on the solitary ground that the statement of witness under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code sought for by the petitioner have not been duly furnished to him. She has further submitted that even on record of the case, the representation of the petitioner has been duly replied to vide communication dated 23.10.2000, wherein it is specifically pointed out that all the relevant documents sought for by the petitioner has been duly supplied to him. The said communication has also been received by the detenue and the same bears his signature of receipt. She has further submitted that awarding exemplary cost as the compensatory measure to the petitioner i.e. the detenue is not justified looking to the facts of the case as the basis of the order of detention is the exercise of discretion vested in the Commissioner of Police after recording his subjective satisfaction that it was incumbent to detain the detenue in the larger interest of the public in order to ensure peace and tranquility in the Society and in order to maintain public order. IT was the apprehension of the Commissioner of Police that the detenue was likely to breach the public law and order that necessitated him to pass such order of detention. She has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge by awarding exorbitant compensatory cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/- merely on the statement made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that such amount had been charged by him from the detenue, is not justified. There was no evidence with regard to the amount of fees paid. Though the Learned Single Judge has held that no cost may be awarded for expenses like Court fees, typing charges etc. incurred by the detenue as no proof of the same has been provided. The Learned Single Judge should not have, in that case, awarded the cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/- merely on the statement made by the learned advocate as there was no documentary evidence on record just as expenses incurred for typing charges, Court fees and other miscellaneous expenses were not awarded by the Learned Single Judge on the ground that the same was not established by any bill of expenses produced before the Court. She has further submitted that it was the first date on which the petition was notified for hearing and the Court should not have rejected the request for time and even if such a request was rejected, the Court should not have awarded the cost of Rs.10,000/-. She has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge awarding the cost of Rs.10,000/- and directing the State Government to make an inquiry in this regard is required to be quashed and set aside. She has further submitted that pursuant to the order of the Learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the detention order, the detenue has already been released and since the said order has already been implemented, the appellants confine their relief only to the extent of quashing and setting aside the order awarding cost as well as issuing direction to make an inquiry in the matter.