HUSSAIN ISMAIL MIYANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarl for quashing the detention order dated 16-4-1998 passed by the Detaining Authority under Sec. 3(2) of the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "PASA") and a writ of habeas corpus seeking immediate release of the petitioner from illegal detention.

(2.) The brief facts are that the Detaining Authority, viz.. Police Commissioner, Rajkot after considering the report of the sponsoring authority, cases registered against the petitioner under Prohibition Act and the statements of three witnesses recorded by the sponsoring authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner is a bootlegger who is running a factory of country-made liquor and after manufacturing the same he is storing and selling the country-made liquor. In prosecution of his business as bootlegger the petitioner at times had threatened the witnesses who objected the activities of the petitioner which amounted to disturbance of public order. Considering the activities of the petitioner to be prejudicial for maintenance of public order the impugned order of detention was passed which is under challenge in this writ petition on two grounds.

(3.) The first contention has been that one copy of bail order referred by the Detaining Authority was not wholly legible and since it was partly illegible the detenu was prevented from giving effective reply in his defence and this has violated his constitutional right under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India. I am not impressed with this contention. This contention has no force for the obvious reason that the bail order was passed in favour of the petitioner. It is not his case that any observation adverse to the petitioner was made in the bail order and that adverse portion in the bail order was relied upon by the Detaining Authority in reaching subjective satisfaction against the prejudicial activities of the petitioner. If the bail order was in favour of the petitioner without any adverse comment against him its copy was furnished by the Detaining Authority to the petitioner in routine manner because the said order was part of the record of the report of the sponsoring authority. Consequently, on this ground it cannot be said that the petitioner was prevented from making effective representation in his defence.