IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6773 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ============================================================ 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? -------------------------------------------------------------- BHAGVANDAS @ LALO RAMESHBHAI KAHAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 6773 of 2003 MR AMRISH PANDYA ON BEHALF OF MS KRISHNA U MISHRA for Petitioner No. 1 MR RC KODEKAR AGP for Respondent No. 1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA Date of decision: 22/07/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT The present petition has been filed by the petitioner - detenu challenging the detention order passed by the detaining authority. The detenu has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1985') by order dated 4/1/2003 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara City and he has been declared as "bootlegger". 2. It is now well settled that unless the activities of a person as bootlegger has disturbed the maintenance of public order, he cannot be detained under the Act. Reliance is placed on a decision in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 491. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material on record. Learned AGP tenders affidavit on behalf of the detaining authority. The same is ordered to be taken on record. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority has passed the detention order on 4/1/2003 relying upon the two offences registered against the petitioner under Prohibition Act and statement of two witnesses. He has mainly argued that the petitioner has written a detailed representation to the concerned authority on 23/4/2003, and the authority received the same on 24/4/2003 and the authority rejected the said representation on 28/2/2003 and accordingly the petitioner was informed and the petitioner received the copy of the said communication on 3/5/2003 through jail, and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is a delay in deciding the representation and communicating the decision of the representation to the petitioner, which is unconstitutional. In support of his say, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 1126, in which the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under :- "We would emphasise that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional. We order accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith." 4. Since the detaining authority has not decided the representation of the petitioner and not communicated the decision of the representation of the petitioner promptly, in view of the above judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of detention is illegal and the same cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press any other points. 5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 4/1/2003 passed against the detenu is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu namely Bhagvandas @ Lalo Rameshbhai Kahar is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. D.S. Permitted. (R.P.DHOLAKIA,J.) Rafik