IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10034 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- SANJAY MULUBHAI SOLANKI Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PS GONDALIA for MR YOGESH S LAKHANI for Petitioner MS PUNANI for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MISS JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT Date of decision: 06/07/1999 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The petitioner challenges the order of preventive detention dated 2nd September, 1998, made by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot, under the powers conferred upon him under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The petition requires to be allowed on a short ground that the vital document referred to in the grounds of detention and relied upon by the Detaining Authority for recording his subjective satisfaction has not been supplied to the petitioner. The grounds of detention suggests that the petitioner is held to be a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Act, and his activities are detrimental to the maintenance of public order. Earlier also on similar ground, the petitioner was detained under the Act. In paragraph-7 of the grounds of detention, there is a clear stipulation that earlier on 2nd May, 1995, the petitioner had been detained under the Act, and inspite of such preventive detention, the petitioner has continued his anti-social activities. It is, therefore, obvious that the Detaining Authority has considered the earlier order of detention while recording his subjective satisfaction and has also relied upon the same. It was, therefore, imperative for the Detaining Authority to furnish a copy of the said order to the petitioner along with the order and the grounds of detention. The petitioner's detention is, therefore vitiated. For the reasons recorded in the judgment, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2nd September, 1998 (Annexure-A to the petition) is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. The petitioner, unless is required to be detained in some other case, be released forthwith. The learned advocate Mr. Gondalia has submitted that at the time of his detention, the petitioner was detained in the jail at Surat. However, since then the petitioner has been transferred to the jail at Bhuj. The Registry is, therefore, directed to send a writ of this order to the Superintendent of Jail at Bhuj also. .... JOSHI*