KHUSHAL JETHA PARMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu was detained by the Commissioner of Police, Baroda City, by his order dated 24.8.1985 on being satisfied that the detenu was required to be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order covered under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985-The grounds of detention are dated 24.8.1985, i.e. to say they are even dated. The grounds disclose that the detenu was required to be detained as he was beating the citizens of the Bakarawad, Chamarwas, Baroda, and used to threaten them with life, so that nobody would challenge him. It is also alleged that he was habituated to commit offences under Chapter 16 of the Indian Penal Code and that he was vending illicit liqour, which is an anti-social activity. It is also alleged that an externment order was passed against him and yet he was entering the prohibited area. He is also known as a head-strong and notorious person with communal leanings. It is specifically alleged that on 11.7.1985 there was a meeting held of persons who were in favour of the maintenance of roster. The detenu collected 50 to 60 Harijan associates and incited them to take law in their hands against the upper caste citizens. He also took his associates with him before the houses of the upper caste persons and started speaking abuses and was speaking aloud that the houses of the upper caste persons should be burnt and that their girls should be kidnapped. As a result of such an activity on the part of the detenu, there spread an atmosphere of fear. In the aforesaid area. The higher caste people closed their houses and the public order was suspended. It is also alleged that on account of his head-strongness, no body was prepared to depose against him, out of fear. It is also alleged that he had committed similar activities in the past also, and further he was arrested for offences under the Prohibition Act.

(2.) Mr. Bharat Dave, the learned advocate for the detenu, assailed the detention inter alia, on the ground of delay in the disposal of the representation. The relevant dates are as under: The detention of order -dated 24.8.1985. Grounds of detention -dated 24.8.1985. Representation to Government -dated 3.9.1985. Representation received by the Govt. -on 9.9.1985. The rejection of representation. -on 18.10. 1985. Mr. Dave emphasised that there was delay of one month and ten days between the receipt and its rejection. He submitted that such delay alone was sufficient t9 quash the order of detention.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Bhatt, referred to the affidavit of the Under Secretary to Government, Home Department, Mr. M.P. Rao, and submitted that the delay is explained in the affidavit on the ground that there was heavy back-log of work-load due to State Government employees strike and also due to the fact that there was shortage of staff. Mr. Bhatt submitted that the delay is explained as having been based on reasonable grounds. With respect we do not agree with Mr. Bhatts submission. In the first place, the reasons for delay are absolutely vague and bald. There is absolutely nothing to reflect to what was the backlog of the work-load and how far it was due to the strike of the Government employees. In fact, we are not given the exact dates as to when did the employees strike came to an end and with what alacrity the matter was taken up for disposal after the strike was over. In our opinion, therefore, there is substance in the grievance made by Mr. Dave that there is unreasonable delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu. We are pained to note that the respondents have shown such a lackadaisical attitude even in the matter of preventive detention of a person. The preventive detention is detention without trial and therefore at every stage the dispatch of business is required to be made with quickness. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to quash the impugned order of detention on this ground alone.