MAHESH RAMJILAL NATH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking two reliefs, one in the nature of certiorari for quashing the detention order dated 9-3-1998 passed against him by the Detaining Authority in exercise of powers under Sec. 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. 1985 (for short "PASA") and for a writ of habeas corpus praying for his immediate release from illegal detention.

(2.) The brief facts are that along with the detention order, grounds of detention were supplied to the petitioner and from these grounds it appears that the petitioner was allegedly involved in business of foreign liquor and transporting the same from Rajasthan to Ahmedabad and selling it at Ahmedabad. It was not an isolated activity. He was held up to six times under the Prohibition Act and five cases were registered against him under this Act. One case was also registered against him in the year 1996, under various sections of the I.P.C. The Detaining Authority came to the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was a bootlegger dealing in illegal activity of transport and sale of foreign liquor in Ahmedabad and is also a dangerous person. Two incidents dated 15-1-1998 .and 12-2-1998 were also mentioned in the grounds of detention which were supported by two witnesses. Since the witnesses were afraid of the activities of the petitioner they did not Like to disclose their identity. The Detaining Authority exercising privilege under Sec. 9(2) of the PASA Act withheld the names and addresses of the witnesses in the grounds of detention.

(3.) The grounds of detention have been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly on six counts. These are : (1) The alleged activities of the petitioner do not amount to disturbance of public order nor create any problem in maintenance of public order. (2) That the petitioner was placed under preventive detention despite the fact that he was in judicial custody in C.R. No. 5003 of 1998 and in police custody C.R. No. 5006 of 1998, (3) That the privilege claimed by the Detaining Authority in withholding the names and addresses of the witnesses is arbitrary and contrary to law. (4) That the representation of the petitioner sent to the State Government was not decided which has caused material prejudice to him and his continued detention is illegal, (5) That copies of two documents supplied to the petitioner are not legible which has affected the right of the petitioner to make effective representation against his illegal detention, (6) That the grounds of detention are vague.