BRIJESH DINESHBHAI PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate directions to quash and set aside the order dated 15. 1. 2007 of his detention as a dangerous person under the provisions of section 3 (2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. (for short, "the PASA Act") with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) ACCORDING to the grounds of detention supplied to the detenu under section 9 of the PASA, he is "dangerous person" having criminal mind. He is stated to be indulging in the activity of committing theft in different areas in Gujarat by committing theft of vehicles and thereby instilling a sense of fear in the public. Three FIRs are stated to have been registered in Naranpura police station and one FIR is stated to have been registered in Sola police station alleging offences punishable under sections 379, 356 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, after being satisfied about the petitioner's status of being "dangerous person" and with a view to prevent him from his anti-social activities, it was found to be necessary to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Ms. Nisha Thakore, appearing for the detenu, challenged the impugned order on different grounds namely, that pursuant to the impugned order dated 15. 10. 2007, the petitioner has been taken in custody and sent to Junagadh district jail and copy of the ground of detention was not supplied to the petitioner and hence the petitioner was deprived of his constitutional rights to make effective representation before the concerned authority. She further submitted that through the relative of the petitioner, the detenu has come to know about the confirmation of the detention. She submitted that the detaining authority has wrongly registered four offences under section 356 and 379 of IPC and recorded statements of the witnesses. She further submitted that the Advisory Board has erred in confirming the detention order without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also submitted by her that the names and address of two witnesses have not been disclosed to the petitioner. She finally submitted that non-supply of materials and denial of his right to make effective representation and the delay of one and half months caused in passing the detention order, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority gets vitiated.