DILIPSING DARSHANSINGH BHARODIYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a detenu under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Ordinance, 1985 ('the Ordinance' for short) has challenged the order of his detention on diverse grounds. The order is at annexure 'C' to the petition. It is issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and it reads that the authority is statisfied with respect to the person known as Dilipsing Darshansingh Bharodia (the petitioner herein), that with a view to maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city, it is necessary to make an order that the said Dilipsing be detained. The grounds of detention dated 1 -6 -1985 are also supplied to the detenu. By an amendment to this petition, which was granted by us on 4 -10 -1985, a contention is raised in para 12B that when the detenu got the knowledge from the others dated 12 -9 -85 that he has right to make the representation to State Government against the detention order, with the help of others, he had sent the representation to the State Government and the detaining authority but till today, it is not considered. Thus, on one hand, the fundamental right of the petitioner is violated by making delay in considering it. It is also illegal and unjust and continued detention of the petitioner becomes illegal. Earlier, when this petition was admitted to final hearing, the Commissioner of police who is the detaining authority had filed his affidavit -in -reply seeking to meet all the grounds raised originally in the petition. So far as the aforesaid ground 12B brought on record by amendment is concerned, Mr. M. T. Parmar, Under Secretary, Home Department has filed his affidavit -in -reply on behalf of the State of Gujarat which is the authority that had to consider the representation. In connection with aforesaid ground 12B, regarding delay in consideration of the representation, the following reply is submitted in para 3 of the affidavit -in -reply:

(2.) MR . H. L. Patel for Miss Kachhavah for the petitioner placed in the forefront the aforesaid ground 12B for consideration alongwith other grounds. Having heard Mr. Patel for the petitioner and Mr. Panchal, learned Assistant P.P. for the respondents, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be allowed only on that ground. Hence, we have not thought it necessary to dilate on other contentions which Mr. Patel wanted to urge in support of the petition.

(3.) SO far as the question regarding expeditious disposal of the representation filed by the detenu in the light of the constitutional mandate under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution and also in the light of the statutory requirement of Section 9(1) of the Ordinance is concerned, it becomes obvious that the statutory provision itself lays down that the concerned detenu has to be communicated the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and has to be afforded earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government. The same is the mandate of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. Therefore, the short question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the time taken by the State Government in disposal of the representation of the petitioner against his detention can be said to have been satisfactorily explained on the facts of this case. Before we turn to the factual aspect of the matter in the light of the pleadings of the parties, it will be profitable to have a look at a few relevant decisions on the point to which our attention was invited by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties: Legal Matrix: The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayanarayan v. State of W.B.,AIR 1970, SC 675, had an occasion to consider this very question. Ray, J. speaking for the Supreme Court laid down the law on the point as under: