GAMETI MAMAD HASAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through this writ pettition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the detention order dated 14.7.1998, Annexure "B" to the writ petition passed by the District Magistrate, Junagadh under section 3(2) of Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short PASA) and has prayed for quashing the aforesaid order with further prayer that he be released from illegal detention forthwith.

(2.) From the grounds of detention it appears that the Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is bootlegger and his activities were prejudicial for maintenance of public order. Subjective satisfaction was arrived at on the basis of registration of 12 offences under various sections of the Bombay Prohibition Act for running illegal distillary of wine and also for keeping countrymade liquor without pass and permit. Other activities of the petitioner connected with bootlegging giving rise to impression that these activities were prejudicial for maintenance of public order were also taken into consideration. The statements of four witnesses who were interrogated under police protection on account of fear of the petitioner were also taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority also considered two chapter cases initiated against the petitioner under section 93 of the Bombay Police Act. Considering the aforesaid material and finding that the activities of the petitioner could not be controlled under ordinary law, the impugned order of detention was passed. It is this order which has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the course of arguments only on two grounds.

(3.) One of the grounds of challenge has been the delay in passing the detention order. The learned Counsel contended that the last offence was registered against the petitioner on 13.12.1997 whereas the detention order was passed on 14.7.1998. Hence, there is inordinate delay in passing the detention order. Another contention has been that two witnesses were interrogated on 29.1.1998 and two were interrogated on 31.5.1998 and even from these dates the detention order was inordinately delayed. Hence, it is rendered invalid. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention. As many as 12 cases were registered against the petitioner under various sections of the Bombay Prohibition Act for distilling countrymade liquor and also for unauthorisedly keeping countrymade liquor. All the twelve cases are pending trial. These cases range between 1995 to 1997. The detention order was not passed only on the basis of those cases or on the basis of last registered offence which came into existence on 13.12.1997. Besides this, the statements of four confidential witnesses were recorded and that too under police protection. One can imagine what was the plight of fear in the minds of these four persons from the petitioner. First two witnesses stated about the incident of January,1998. The third witness stated about the incident of March,1998 and the fourth witness about the incident of April,1998. They were tremendously terrorised on account of antisocial activities of the petitioner. They could be interrogated under police protection. Two were interrogated on 28.1.1998 and two were interrogated on 31.5.1998. It is only when the entire material was collected that the sponsoring authority could submit his report to the Detaining Authority and the sponsoring authority could not have submitted his report before 31.5.1998. The detention order was passed on 14.7.1998 and as such there was only one month and 13 days delay. This delay cannot be said to be inordinate delay because the Detaining Authority had to apply his mind to the entire material placed by the sponsoring authority before him. Thus, the detention order cannot be struck down on the ground of being delayed.