DEVSI KARABHAI MARIYA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner-detenu has challenged his detention order dated 26.6.2002. By the impugned order, the petitioner-detenu is detained in exercise of the powers under section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act,1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA" for short), as, the detaining authority found that the detenu is a "property grabber" and is required to be detained under the preventive detention, so that, he may not continue with such type of illegal activities.

(2.) . Along with the detention order, the detenu was also served with the grounds of detention. It is alleged against the petitioner that he has prepared certain false documents in connection with certain land of Revenue Survey No.1354 and the particulars in connection with preparing false documents are described in detail in the detention order. Considering the grounds of detention, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has indulged himself in grabbing the land in illegal manner and he has tried to create false documents. It is also found by the detaining authority that he is trying to cheat the State Government for the purpose of making money. The detaining authority also found that the petitioner has acted in a high-handed and illegal manner in the matter of grabbing the land and having been satisfied subjectively about such activities of the petitioner, the petitioner is detained by way of preventive detention. The aforesaid order is challenged in this petition.

(3.) At the time of hearing of this petition, it is argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner that, the petitioner through his advocate made a representation to the detaining authority on 7.8.2002 and the detaining authority received the same on 9.8.2002; however, according to the learned advocate, the detaining authority kept the aforesaid representation with him upto 16.8.2002 and on 16.8.2002 he forwarded the same to the State Government. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that since the petitioner's representation is not dealt with properly, there is a violation of the mandate of constitutional safeguard and accordingly, the petitioner is required to be released by setting aside the detention order.