KALUBHAI ALABHAI VANKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer is for a writ of certiorari to quash the detention order dated 31st March, 1998 passed by the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, and a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for immediate release of the petitioner from illegal detention.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this petition are as under: The detaining authority aforesaid, considering three registered cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act against the petitioner and further considering the statements of three confidential witnesses, who requested to keep secret their names, addresses and identities, arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is bootlegger and his antisocial activities connected with his business of bootlegging were prejudicial for maintenance of public order. Accordingly the impugned order of detention was passed. This order has been challenged in the instant writ petition on two grounds.

(3.) The first contention is that there was four days' delay in dealing with the representation of the detenu petitioner. This contention is not only factually incorrect but has no legs to stand. Counter affidavit of Shri J.R. Rajput, Under Secretary tothe Government of Gujarat, explains the so called delay to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is mentioned in this paragraph that representation dated 13th April, 1998 made by the son of the detenu, addressed to the Chief Minister, was received in the office of the Chief Minister on 16th April, 1998. This delay between 13th April, 19988 and 16th April, 1998 is not to be explained by the State Government. The State Government was expected to deal with the representation expeditiously from the date it was received in the office and this date will be 16th April,1998. Since the representation was not addressed to the authority disclosed in the grounds of detention, rather it was addressed to the Chief Minister, it was forwarded by the office of the Chief Minister to the Home Department. It was considered by the Deputy Secretary of the Home Department on 17th April, 1998. File was then sent to the Principal Secretary, Home Department, on the same date. The Principal Secretary considered the representation on 18th April, 1998 and rejected the same on 19th April. Thus two days delay is sufficiently explained. It is not a minute's delay, or every minutes delay which is to be explained by the State Government. This is not the ground for quashing the detention order.