RAMESHCHANDRA KANTILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) The petition has been contested both the State Government as well as the Central Government through their respective advocates. Though the State Government has not filed the counter-affidavit, the learned AGP has relied upon the records of the matter and has submitted that the representation made by the petitioner on 1st January 1999, was received by the Government on 7th January 1999 and was dealt with day-to-day by the concerned Section Officer of the Department, Deputy Secretary, Secretary and the Minister from 8th January 1999 till 15th January 1999. Upon receipt of the papers from the office of the Hon'ble Minister, the representation was rejected under order dated 19th January 1999 and was communicated to the petitioner on the same day and the endorsement of the receipt has been made by the petitioners himself. She has also submitted that the decision of the Advisory Board has been communicated to the petitioner on 15th February 1999. The order of detention is communicated along with the grounds of detention and it does appear that while making the said order, the Detaining Authority has relied upon several entries made in the stock register. stock received by the petitioner, the actual stock found at the time of the search. Upon perusal of the papers supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention, it appears that along with the order of detention and the grounds of detention, the petitioner has also been served with the copy of the Panchnama, seizure memo, copies of the relevant entries from the stock register, copies of several bills for purchase of kerosene, copies of relevant entries of the kerosene stock register, and copy of the stock register for the month of November 1998, etc. Thus, it appears that the relevant entries on which the reliance has been placed and the entries which were the root cause for the seizure of the stock and the detention of the petitioner, have been supplied to the petitioner along with the order of detention. The petitioner's contention that he had been deprived of fair opportunity to make effective representation against the order of detention cannot be accepted. Mr. Gandhi's contention that the Detaining Authority has not considered the less drastic measure also cannot be accepted. The grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner do disclose that the Detaining Authority has considered the possibility of resorting to other remedy. However, after considering the relevant factors, the Detaining Authority has decided to pass the order under the Act. It is apparent that the Detaining Authority has explored the possibility of other remedies available under the relevant law. However, availability of other remedies not being the bar against the exercise of powers under the detention law, the order of detention is not vitiated.

(3.) xxx xxx xxx.