PRAVIN MAHIPATRAI MEHTA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SURENDRANAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitions are filed by the petitioners who are the detenues challenging the detention orders passed against them by the District Magistrate Surendranagar. It is specifically stated in the said orders dated 4 and 20-9-1992 respectively that the detention was necessary for a period of one year for preventing them from continuing their activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. They were supplied with the grounds of detention on the respective dates of the detention orders. Looking to the contention raised before us it is not necessary to mention the grounds of detention but the petitioners were detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the PASA) as dangerous persons whose activities were prejudicial to the maintenance off public order.

(2.) In these petitions several grounds are raised challenging the impugned orders of detention. However Mr. I.B. Pardiwala the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has pressed only one point before us. The point is that when the Detaining Authority who is a specially empowered officer of the State Government has stated in the detention orders that it was necessary to detain the petitioners for one year and accordingly they were detained for one year that order is bad and illegal.

(3.) He submits that the said orders when they are for one year would be contrary to the provision of sub-sec.(3) of sec. 3 of the PASA which requires approval of the State Government within twelve days. He further submits that the said orders would be contrary to the express provision of Art. 22(4) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as without the opinion of the Advisory Board of having sufficient ground for detention no person can be detained for more than three months and the impugned orders directly detaining the petitioners for one year are therefore contrary to that Constitutional mandate. He further submits that the impugned detention orders are further contrary to the provisions of the PASA which requires an opinion of the Advisory Board for the purpose of either revoking the order when there is no sufficient ground for detention or for confirming the orders when there is sufficient ground for detention. So the impugned orders which are initially for one year are contrary to the provisions of the PASA and that also usurps the power of the Government of confirming the detention orders. The said orders are also contrary to the provision of sec.14 of the PASA as per which the maximum period of detention is one year when the order is confirmed. In view of the aforesaid grounds Mr. Pardiwala submits that the impugned orders of detention should be held to be bad and illegal and the petitioners should be released forthwith.