VINAYBHAI K YADAV Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the detention order dated 15.6.1998 passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act (for short 'PASA') and has further prayed for his immediate release from illegal detention.

(2.) The brief facts emerging from the grounds of detention (Annexure "B") are that from four cases registered under sections 379, 511, 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage of Public Properties Act and from the statements of four confidential witnesses, the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the petitioner is a dangerous person within the definition of section 2(c) of the PASA and his activities were prejudicial for maintenance of public order. Consequently, the impugned order of detention was passed. This order is under challenge in this petition on several grounds. The main ground is that the activities of the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudicial for maintenance of public order. It was urged that the registered offences are not against the public order and activities in connection with those offences were not prejudicial for maintenance of public order. Another contention has been that the statements of witnesses are vague in as much as the date, time and place have not been specified by them and from the activities stated by the confidential witnesses, the public at large was not affected. Hence, from these statements, it cannot be said that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial for maintenance of public order. Another contention in the same context has been that no injury was caused to any member of the public in either of these incidents. Thus, in effect the cumulative effect of these contentions is that the activities of the petitioner were not prejudicial for maintenance of public order.

(3.) The next contention has been that the representation of the petitioner dated 9.7.1998 given to the District Magistrate, Vadodara was received on 20.7.1998 but it was forwarded to the State Government on 31.7.1998 and there is no explanation of this undue detention of representation for a period of 11 to 12 days. For these two reasons, it was vehemently argued that the impugned order of detention has been rendered illegal and as such the continued detention is also rendered illegal.