IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7991 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL ============================================================ 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- MAMADBHAI MUSABHAI DOSANI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Petitioner MR RC KODEKAR for Respondents No. 1 to 3 MS PJ DAVAWALA for Respondent No. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL Date of decision: 01/09/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. By means of filing this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order of detention dated July 3, 2000 passed by District Magistrate, Rajkot in exercise of powers conferred on him by sub.section-2 of section-3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. 2. The grounds of detention supplied to the detenu indicate that the detenu was dealing in kerosene which is one of the essential commodities and having regard to the materials placed before him, the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodity essential to the community. Therefore, an order was made by him on July 3, 2000 directing to detain the petitioner. 3. Several contentions have been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the validity of the order of detention. However, it is not necessary to refer to all of them except one, which in my opinion, deserves acceptance. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the documents which were supplied to the detenu along with grounds of detention at the time when the detenu was detained are not legible and as right of the petitioner to make effective representation guaranteed under Article-22(5) of the Constitution is infringed, the continued detention of the detenu should be held to be illegal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In order to highlight this point, the petitioner has produced original bunch of documents supplied to the detenu at the time of his detention. The first information report registered as CR.I.179/2000 with Rajkot Rural Police Station and other document which is on page-5 of the compilation supplied to the detenu are not legible at all. The learned Asst. Government Pleader tried to read them in vain. In fact, supply of illegible documents amounts to non-supply of those documents which are referred to and relied upon by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. There is no manner of doubt that when illegible documents are supplied, right of the detenu to make effective representation which is guaranteed under Article-22(5) of the Constitution stands infringed. Under the circumstances, the continued detention of the detenu will have to be regarded as illegal. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds. The continued detention of the detenu is held to be illegal. The respondents are directed to release the detenu immediately unless his presence is needed with reference to any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.M. Panchal, J.) kamlesh*