JAGDISHCHANDRA KARSHANDAS GHEVARIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

(2.) The petitioner herein challenges the order of preventive detention dated 4/02/1999 made by the District Magistrate, Junagadh under the powers conferred upon him under subsec.(2) of sec.3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

(3.) The petition requires to be allowed on the ground of not attending to the representation made against the impugned order through the learned advocate to the District Magistrate on 23/02/1999. The order of detention made by the District Magistrate was approved by the State Government on 15/02/1999. Therefore, the District Magistrate could not have considered and decided the representation made to him on 23rd February 1999. All that he was required to do was to forward the said representation to the State Government, probably with his own remarks. The said representation was received by the office of the District Magistrate on 1st March 1999 and it took five days for the said office to decide that it should not be considered and decided on merits and should be forwarded to the State Government. The affidavit made by the District Magistrate discloses that having received the said representation on 1st March 1999, it had to travel from his Personal Assistant to himself and then to the Additional Collector, Food Branch, District Supply Officer, Head Clerk and back to the District Magistrate. I am unable to comprehend as to why the representation ought to have been moved from table to table as referred hereinabove. Further, four days are spent in sending the representation from one officer to another. It is not explained as to whether all the aforesaid officers had to apply their mind to the representation or had to offer some comments upon the said representation. The practice of moving papers from one table to the other, more particularly in detention matters has been deprecated by the Honourable Supreme Court as early as in the year 1981 in the matter of Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. and others, [AIR 1981 SC 1126]. However, it appears that the respondent authorities have not been able to streamline their procedure and to avoid the avoidable delay.