BHANUBHAI NAGJIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Detenu, by filing this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order of detention passed by District Magistrate, Ahmedabad on June 18, 1995 in exercise of powers conferred on him by sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA' for short) and has prayed for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing his release and quashing the order.

(2.) Earlier, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 4914 of 1995 challenging the same order of detention, before surrendering. The said petition was withdrawn unconditionally on July 5, 1995. It appears that immediately after surrendering to the authorities, the detenu filed Special Civil Application No. 6370 of 1995 in the month of July 1995. From the record, it appears that the matter was heard by this Court (Coram : S. D. Shah, J.) and the learned Counsel for the petitioner was fully heard. The matter was adjourned for hearing at the instance of learned Additional Government Pleader. The matter was thereafter placed before another Bench (Coram : J. M. Panchal, J.) since the previous Bench was not able to take up the matter. The petitioner insisted for giving priority, but learned Advocates appearing in other matters objected to the same. It appears that the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was granted and by an order dated 10th October 1995, the petition was disposed of accordingly. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order of detention before the Honourable Supreme Court by filing a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution and the same was withdrawn on 12-12-1995. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Supreme Court made a statement before the Honourable Court that the petitioner would file a fresh petition before the High Court to seek appropriate relief and make a request to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition keeping in view the date of the detention and the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. The Supreme Court recorded the said statement and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present petition before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the same order of detention.

(3.) Before the learned single Judge, on behalf of the respondents, learned Additional Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition and contended that successive petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution are not tenable and for that purpose, has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Ambalal Gandhi v. B. K. Jha, Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City and Ors. reported in 1987(1) GLH 109. On the other hand, Mr. Rawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that a second petition is maintainable and requested the Court to refer the matter to a larger Bench, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Virumal Gurumukhdas Saheta v. Commissioner of Police, Baroda City and Ors. [Special Civil Application No. 1562 of 1993 decided by a Division Bench (Coram : S. D. Dave and S. M. Soni, JJ.) on 22-12-1993. Learned Counsel also relied on the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A. Tribunal, Gwalior, reported in AIR 1987 SC 88. The learned single Judge (Coram : J. M. Panchal, J.), by order dated 11th March 1996, directed the office to place this matter before a larger Bench after obtaining necessary orders from the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice. This matter has accordingly been placed before this Bench.