IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10831 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- MAGANBHAI KHODABHAI KOLI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 10831 of 2001 MR ZUBIN F BHARDA for Petitioner No. 1 MR SS PATEL, AGP, for Respondents No. 1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 06/02/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has been detained by an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, Rajkot, on the 30th October, 2001, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA Act" for short). 2. The detaining authority took into consideration four offences registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, so also the statements of two anonymous witnesses. The detaining authority considered the activities of the detenu as that of a bootlegger and observed that the petitioner is required to be immediately prevented from pursuing his activities, which are detrimental to public order. The authority also considered the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedies and came to conclusion that detention under PASA Act is the only remedy that can be resorted to. 3. The petitioner challenges the order of detention on various grounds. Mr. Bharda, learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that a representation was made by the detenu through jail authorities on the 3rd November, 2001, which was received by the Government on the 11th November, 2001. The Government rejected the said representation on the 16th November, 2001. A communication in this regard was addressed to the detenu only on the 24th November 2001. Therefore, there is delay in considering the representation and in communicating the order rejecting the representation of the detenu. The delay in considering the representation and in communicating the decision on the representation has affected the right of the detenu of making an effective representation and, therefore, the continued detention is vitiated. He, therefore, urged that the petition may be allowed and the order of detention may be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. Patel learned Assistant Government Pleader, has opposed this petition. 5. Having regard to rival side contentions, petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that there is delay in considering the representation and in communicating the decision on the representation of the detenu. The representation was received by the Government on the 5th November, 2001 and it was rejected on the 16th November, 2001 and, thereafter, the same was communicated to the detenu only on the 24th November, 2001. Not only that there is delay in considering the representation, but also there is a clear delay of 8 days in communicatin the order of rejection of the representation of the detenu. This would affect the right of the detenu of making an effective representation. Therefore, the continued detention would be vitiated as held by this Court in the case of Anubhai M. Jani v. State of Gujarat, 2000(3) GLR 649. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated the 30th October, 2001, passed against the detenu is hereby quashed. The detenu-Maganbhai Khodabhai Koli is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other matter. Rule is made absolute with no orders as to costs. 7. Direct service is permitted. [ A.L. DAVE, J. ] gt