DILAWAR GULABBHAI SHAIKH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-detenu has by this petition questioned the legality and validity of order of detention dated 13-5-1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Sec. 3(2) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. Along with the order of detention grounds of detention duly formulated under Sec. 9(1) of the said Act are supplied to the detenu.

(2.) From the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu it becomes clear that the detenu is detained as "bootlegger" within the meaning of term as defined by Sec. 2(b) of the said Act, and as he is involved in as many as four cases which are said to have been registered at Kagdapith Police Station and Gaekwad Police Station. Three out of said four cases are pending investigation while one is pending trial in the Court. Over and above involvement of the detenu in the aforesaid cases the detaining authority has placed reliance upon the statements of witnesses who have desired to be anonymous and their claim of anonymity is accepted in exercise of powers conferred upon the authority under Sec. 9(2) of the said Act. On the aforesaid material, order of detention is passed.

(3.) At the hearing of this petition Miss D. R. Kachhawah, learned Advocate for detenu has assailed the continued detention of the detenu on the ground that the right of the detenu guaranteed under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India of getting the representation effectively and expeditiously considered is denied inasmuch as representation made by the detenu to the detaining authority dated 24-5-1993 is considered as back as 17/07/1993 when the communication is received by the petitioner from the detaining authority. She further submitted that there is no reasonable explanation forthcoming from the respondents for the aforesaid delay of about one month and 22 days in disposing of the representation sent by the detenu. She has further submitted that the representation is admittedly received by the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad on the very next day, i e. on 25/05/1993 and therefore, the detaining authority is required to explain the delay caused in considering the representation. In the absence of any reasonably acceptable explanation the delay in considering the representation must prove fatal to the continued detention of the detenu and, therefore, the detenu should be ordered to be released forthwith, submits the learned Advocate for petitioner.