IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 12345 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA ============================================================ 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- SHIVBHADRASINH @ SHIVUBHA @ SHIVO RAGHUVIRSINH JADEJA Versus THE DIST. MAGISTRATE, -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 12345 of 2003 MS BANNA S DUTTA for Petitioner No. 1 MS MITA PANCHAL ld. AGP for Respondent No. 1-4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA Date of decision: 17/09/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT By way of this special civil application, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed against him by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar on 25.11.2002 under the exercise of powers under sec. 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act" for short). The detaining authority, as per the grounds placed on record and served upon the petitioner, taken into consideration the facts of four offences came to be registered against the petitioner under sec. 380 and 114 of IPC and statements of the witnesses whose identity is not disclosed, recorded by the proposing authority on 17.11.2002 and verified by the detaining authority on 21.11.2002. In all, four in-camera statements are recorded and relied upon which discloses the fact that the petitioner is indulged in activity of committing theft and extorting amounts from the tradesmen and other persons. Though the witnesses revealed individual incidents in which each of the witness was involved and was threatened by the petitioner. From the above material, the detaining authority passed the order impugned in this petition. Ld. advocate Ms. Datta for the petitioner and ld. AGP Ms. Panchal for the respondents were heard at length. Ld. AGP placed on record the affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner which is also taken into consideration. On going through the record of this petition carefully it clearly appears that out of many contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, this petition can be disposed of on the ground of delay in passing the order and ultimately the order of detention is vitiated. The fact on record reveal that the last offence came to be registered against the petitioner before Bhavnagar "B" Division Police Station on 22.9.2002, however, the proposing authority recorded the statements of the witnesses only on 17.11.2002 revealed the incidents taken place earlier to 17.11.2002. The verification was made by the detaining authority on 21.11.2002 and the order came to be passed on 25.11.2002. The delay in recording the statements as well as the delay in passing the order from registration of the last offence is apparent from the record. The delay explained in para-6 of the affidavit in reply is not satisfactorily. This delay is fatal in passing the order of detention. The facts of this case are covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Elesh Nandubhai Patel vs. Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad city, as reported in 1997(1) GLH p. 381 and a decision in the matter of Pradeep N. Paturkar vs. S. Rammurthi, as reported in AIR 1994 SC 656. The delay caused is not explained. In the result, this special civil application is allowed. The order impugned in this special civil application passed on 25.11.2002 by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, under the PASA Act against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in jail for any other purpose. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. (J.R. VORA, J.) mandora/