Gujarat High Court
SCA/8662/1996 of RAMANBHAI KHENGARBHAI SOLANKI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 25 November 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8662 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8662 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- RAMANBHAI KHENGARBHAI SOLANKI
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MS SUBHADRA G PATEL for Petitioner Mr Umesh Trivedi, APP for the respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
Date of decision: 25/11/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT
I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP. It appears that six cases have been registered against the detenue for offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act. A complaint has also been registered against the detenue under section 93 of the said Act. The detaining authority has relied on statements of four witnesses wherein privilege under section 9(2) of the said Act has been claimed.
Statements of the witnesses are of general in nature. There is nothing to suggest that the activities of the petitioner is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In view of this, the order of detention being illegal cannot be sustained.
2. In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of detention dated 10.7.1996 is quashed and set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule made absolute accordingly.
....