IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4530 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- DHIRUBHAI GANDABHAI KOLI Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MS DR KACHHAVAH for Petitioner SERVED BY RPAD - (R) for Respondent No. 1, 3 MR SJ DAVE, AGP for Respondent No. 2-State. -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA Date of decision: 05/07/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as " the Act of 1985" ) by the order dated 3-2-2000 passed by the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City and he has been declared as dangerous person. 2. It is a settled principles of law that in order to bring a person within the expression " dangerous person" as defined in clause (c) of section 2 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985, ( for short " the Act of 1985 " ), there should be positive materials to indicate that such person is habitual of committing or attempting to commit or abetting the commission of offences which are punishable under Chapter XVI or XVII of Chapter V of the Arms Act and that single or isolated act falling under the said Chapters cannot be characterised as a habitual acts as envisaged in section 2 (c) of the PASA Act. Further, besides a person being a dangerous person, his activities should also fall within the ambit of expression " public order". A distinction has to be drawn between the " law and order " and " maintenance of public order ". A reference may be made of M.J.Shaikh v. M.M.Mehta, Comissioner of Police & Ors. reported in 1995 (2) GLR 1268. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her arguments only on the point that there is delay in deciding the representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the statements of two independent witnesses have been recorded on 28-1-2000 and 29-1-2000 respectively and the same have been verified by the authority on 31-1-2000 and the order of detention has been passed on 3-2-2000. As per the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner sent representation to the authority on 13-4-2000 and the same was decided by the authority on 25-4-2000. Therefore, there is delay of about 12 days in deciding the representation for which learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1999 SC 884 Rajanmal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another ,wherein it is held as under ; "The position, therefore, now is that if delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. " 4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 3-2-2000 passed against the detenu is hereby quashed. nThe detenu Dhirubhai Gandabhai Koli is hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. ( R.P.Dholakia, J.) *mithabhai