GOVIND CHANGUMAL SINDHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been detained pursuant to order of detention dated 10/10/1988 passed by the detaining authority (Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City) under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'PASA'). The order was executed on the same day, i.e. 10/10/1988 and since then the petitioner is in detention.

(2.) It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is a 'bootlegger' as defined under the provisions of PASA and that he was involved in four criminal cases registered under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, the details of which are mentioned in the grounds of detention. One of the cases has been proved against the petitioner while two of them were under investigation and one was pending in court. It is also alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was storing and selling country liquor in Chamanpura Area of Ahmedabad City and for conducting this activity he was even harassing the innocent citizens. On the basis of the material placed before the detaining authority, he was satisfied the it was necessary to pass the order of detention under the provisions of Section 3(2) of PASA so as to prevent the petitioner from indulging in any activity adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. Hence the order of detention.

(3.) In the facts of the case, it is not necessary to go into the details of various grounds of challenge made against the order of detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-detenu does not know how to read and write Gujarati language though he is residing in Gujarati for lst about 30 years. He further submitted that the petitioner knows Sindhi language and since he has studied upto 7th standard in English Medium he knows English language also. To this effect he has filed an affidavit dated 22/06/1989. It is an admitted position that the grounds of detention and the documents on which the reliance was placed by the detaining authority have not been supplied to the petitioner detenu in the script known and understood by him. The grounds of detention have been suplied to the petitioner in only Gujarati language. The statements made in the affidavit by the petitioner have not been controverted by the other side. On the contrary it is conceded that as per the information gathered by the respondent authorities, the petitioner does not know how to read and write Gujarati language.