IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 10548 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- SURESHBHAI JASHWANTBHAI JARIWALA Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 10548 of 2001 MR ANIL S DAVE for Petitioner No. 1 MR KAMEN N SHUKLA for Petitioner No. 1 MR DP JOSHI, AGP, for resondents -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 05/02/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has been detained by an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, Surat, on the October 17, 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 one offencesregistered 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. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner, contended that a representation was made on the October 23, 2001 and the authority concerned rejected the same on the 3rd November, 2001. A communication in this regard was addressed to the detenu only on November 9, 2001. Therefore, there is delay of six days in communicating the order rejecting the representation of the detenu. The delay 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. Joshi, 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 communicating the decision on the representation of the detenu. Though the representation was rejected on the 3rd November, 2001. Therewas a holidy on the 4th November, 2001 on account of Sunday. The 5th, 6th, 7th and the 8th November, 2001 were working, yet the decision was communicated to the detenu only on the 9th November, 2001. There is a clear delay of 6 days in communicating 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 17th October, 2001, passed against the detenu is hereby quashed. The detenu-Sureshbhai Jashwantbhai Jariwala 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