BABUBHAI GULAMBHAI GOAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is a detenu under the provisions of sec. 3 (l) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities 1985(The PASA Act for short), has brought; In challenge his order of preventive detention on diverse grounds. The order of detention is dated 31-7-1986. It is at Annexure 'A' to the petition. It recites that the detaining authority viz. District Magistrate, Bharuch is satisfied with respect to person known as Babubhai Gulambhai Goas (the petitioner herein) that with a view to preventing later from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said detenu be detained and, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sec. (1) of sec. 3 of the PASA Act, the District Magistrate has directed detention of the petitioner. The grounds of detention supporting the detention order are of even date and they are found at pages 13 to 16 of the petition. The order of detention has been approved by the State Government and also confirmed by the State Government after receipt of Advisory Board's opinion.

(2.) In response to the Rule issued in this petition, the detaining authority Mr. S. R. Rao, District Magistrate, Bharuch has filed his affidavit-in-reply. Mr. Kapadia, for the petitioner raised five contentions in support of the petition. It is not necessary to reproduce all of them at this stage for the simple reason that the last contention, which Mr. Kapadia canvassed, in our view, goes to the root of the matter and entities the petitioner to succeed. We have, therefore, not mentioned and dealt with other contentions canvassed by Mr. Kapadia in support of the petition.

(3.) The last contention canvassed by Mr. Kapadia is to the effect that the petitioner is an illiterate person and he has not been afforded any opportunity of making effective representation as early as possible to the State Government and also to the Advisory Board. In the grounds of detention, he has not been informed the fact that he can make representation either to the State Government or to the Advisory Board and hence, he has not been told to make any representation and consequently, continued detention of the detenu is illegal.