GOVIND MADHU KATHIAWARI Vs. COMMISIONER OF POLICE SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Surat City on 21 -7 -1988 under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PASA ACT'). The petitioner -detenu was served with the detention order and grounds of detention of even date. The detention order and the grounds of detention are at Annexures -A & B respectively to the petition. In the grounds of detention, it has been alleged that during the period between 1985 to 1988, the detenu was involved in about 8 criminal cases which are pending in the Court. The details of Criminal Cases were also supplied to the detenu and they are at Annexure B to the petition. It has been further alleged that on the basis of these criminal cases, the detaining authority has reached to the subjective satisfaction that the detenu was a dangerous person and his activities were injurious to the society at large and more particularly adversely affecting the law and order situation in the area of Vasta Devji Road near Sumul Dairy Road & GIDC, Surat. Therefore, the detaining authority thought it fit to lake action against the detenu under the provisions of PASA Act.

(2.) The impugned detention order has been challenged on various grounds but at the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner -detenu urged only two grounds, namely ground No. 15(b) &15(c) of the petition. It is submitted that particulars of vital facts were not supplied to the detenu particularly that the detenu was released on bail in CR No. 88/88 and the order of bail was not placed before the detaining authority which shows non application of mind of the detaining authority, therefore it has vitiated the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. This submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in the affidavit -in -reply filed by Respondent No. 1, it has been categorically stated that the detaining authority has not relied on this material for passing the impugned order of detention. Further it has been stated that the detaining authority had considered the fact about releasing the detenu on bail in CR No.88/88. It has been stated in the said affidavit that it was not material or relevant for the purpose of passing the impugned order. Therefore, this argument is not helpful to the detenu.

(3.) Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the names and addresses of the persons whose statements were recorded, were not disclosed to the detenu. In the body of the order of detention, it has been mentioned that under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act, the names and addresses of the witness were not disclosed in the interest of public order. Section 9(2) of the PASA Act lays down as under: