ADODIYA BAI SANCHALBEN MULJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Adodiya Bai Sanchalben Muljibhai (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu"), by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order of her detention dated 3-2-1996 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the detaining authority") under Sec. 3 (1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) As can be seen from the grounds of detention suppplied to the detenu, the detaining authority has placed reliance on as many as 21 prohibition cases registered against the detenu between 2-1-1995 and 29-6-95. All these cases are pending trial in the Court. Beside this, the detaining authority has also placed reliance on the statements of three witnesses dated 4-12-95, 5-12-1995 and 7-12-1995 recorded by the Police Inspector, "B" Division Police Station, Bhavnagar, regarding the alleged anti-social and naferious activities being carried out by her. The detaining authority has invoked the provisions of sub- section (2) of Sec. 9 of the Act and claimed privilege for not disclosing the identity of these witnesses to the detenu. Considering these materials, the detaining authority was of the view that the detenu is a "bootlegger" within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Act and with a view of preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintainance of public order, it was necessary to pass the order of detention against her and, therefore, the impugned order is passed, which is under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) This petition can be allowed on more than one ground. However, it is not necessary to deal with each and every contention raised since this petition can be disposed of on the first contention advanced by Mr. Chhara, learned Advocate for the detenu. Mr. Chhara submitted that the detaining authority has blindly accepted the statements of the witnesses without making any inquiry into the correctness thereof and has therefore, wrongly exercised the power under sub-section (2) of the section 9 of the Act claiming privilege for not disclosing the identity of the witnesses under the guise of public interest. Mr. Chhara submitted that the Police Inspector, "B" Division Police Statoin, Bhavnagar, who recorded the statements of three independent witneeses, has not verified about the correctness thereof and, therefore, the privilege claimed by the detaining authority for placing reliance on the said statements without disclosing the identity of the witnesses to the detenu has resulted into a denial to the detenu for making an effective representation to the concerned authority guaranteed under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Chhara, therefore, submitted that the order of detention is vitiated and the petition is required to be allowed only on this ground.