ATUL GUNVANTRAI BHATT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the brother of one Bhaskar Gunvantrai Bhatt who has been detained under the provisions of sec. 3 sub-sec. (2) of the National Security Act 1980 (hereinafter referred to as N. S. A). The order of detention has been passed by the first respondent Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City and is dated 20/02/1981 The order states that the Commissioner of Police who has been authorised under the provisions of sec. 3 sub-sec. (3) of N.S.A. was satisfied with respect to the detenu that with a view to preventing him from action in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City it was necessary to make the order directing that the said detenu Bhaskar Gunvantrai Bhatt be detained and hence this order of detention was being passed. The grounds of detention which were duly furnished to the detenu in due time required by law are dated 21/02/1981 It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the detenu Bhaskar Gunvantrai Bhatt and his companion Gaurang C. Shah had on 6/02/1981 at about 7-15 to 7-30 P. M. approximately collected a group of about one thousand persons near Nava Wadaj Bus Stand and incited the crowd on the following lines: Government is doing injustice to Savarnas by creating reservation seats for Harijans. That cannot be tolerated at all now. Harijans have started a counter-agitation to break up the agitation carried on lay students Harijans are assaulting Savarnas and attacking temples. Even the police is giving support to Harijans and hence this is not the time to sit quietly. Beat up Harijans and loot them. throw stones on police. Then only the agitation will become successful.

(2.) The grounds of detention further proceed to state that because of these facts the detaining authority was satisfied that in order to prevent the detenu from committing acts which would be interfering with the maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain Bhaskar Gunvantrai Bhatt the detenu concerned and hence he had passed the requisite order of detention. Under sec. 8(1) of N.S.A. as required by law the detenu was being informed of the grounds of detention and that under sec. 8(1) the detenu had a right to make a representation to the State Government against the order of detention. The detenu was informed that if he wanted to make a representation against the order of detention then he should forward his representation addressed to the State Government through the Jail Superintendent Sabarmati Central Jail. The grounds of detention further set out that in order to enable the detenu to make an effective representation against the order of detention copies of the record as shown in the schedule to the grounds of detention were being furnished to the detenu. The ultimate paragraph of the grounds of detention states that the names and address of the persons who have given statements to the police were being withheld though copies of their statements were being furnished to the detenu and the names and addresses of those persons were being withheld because the detaining authority was of the opinion that it would be against public interest to disclose those names and addresses and hence those names and addresses were not being furnished to the detenu.

(3.) These are the entire contents of the grounds of detention.