MITHU BAVA PADHIYAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ibrahim Bachu Bafan and Mithu Bawa Padhiyar have filed petitions challenging their detention and applied for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus with a prayer that they may be set at liberty forthwith on the grounds stated in their respective petitions. The facts which led to the filing of these two petitions may be stated as under:- Petitioner Mithu Bawa Padhiyar was ordered to be detained by an order dated 2-1-1984 and that order was served on him on 12-1-1984 while Ibrahim Bachu Bafan was ordered to be detained by an order dated 29-12-1983 and that order was served on him on 28-12-1983. Each one of them made representation to the authorities on 20-1-1984. Their cases were heard by the Advisory Board on 16-2-1984. The Advisory Board submitted its report on 27-2-1984. During this period on 22-1-1984 the petitioners filed two separate petitions praying for their release under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being Special Criminal Applications Nos. 29 of 1984 and 30 of 1984. The petitions were admitted on 25-1-1984 and the Rule was made returnable on 8-3-1984. The petitions came for hearing on Board on 19-3-1984 and they were heard on 23 28 and 5-4-1984. Ultimately the Government meaning thereby the detaining authority decided to revoke the orders of detention and the orders of their detention were revoked. On that very day another order was passed for detaining them on the same day. On the same day grounds for detention were supplied to them. The list of documents on which reliance was placed was also supplied to the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners filed fresh petitions in this Court on 10-4-1984 and they are now being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Here it is required to be stated that the Bhula Jusub Jat against whom similar allegations were made was ordered to be detained by order dated 2-1-1984 and he was also supplied the grounds of his detention which are produced at Annexure F on page 28. The list of documents which were supplied to him is also produced at Annexure G on page 38. Grounds and documents supplied to the petitioners were similar to those supplied to Bhula Jusab Jat. Bhula Jusab Jat made representation to the authorities on 20-1-1984 and the platter was placed before the Advisory Board on 16-2-1984 and the Advisory Board submitted its report on 27-2-1984 and as a result of that report Bhula Jusab Jat came to be released on 27-2-1984.

(3.) Now the learned advocate Shri Ponda who appeared for the two petitioners submitted three grounds. The first ground was that there was total nonapplication of mind inasmuch as the detaining authority did not consider the report of the Advisory Board in regard to Bhula Jusab Jat. In the alternative it was submitted that if the detaining authority did consider the Report of the Advisory Board on Bhula Jusab the part of that report which was essential for the purpose of making effective representations so far as the petitioners are conS cerned was not supplied to them