Gujarat High Court
SCA/4415/1995 of LALO @ LALJIBHAI M KOLI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 7 September 1995
Decision: 7th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4415 of 1995 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to
���Date of Decision: 7th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4415 of 1995
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. DIVECHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of judgment? No
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder? No
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No
---------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Saurin A. Shah, Advocate, for the Petitioner Shri K.T. Dave, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for the Respondents----------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(Date: 7th September 1995)
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.
ORAL JUDGMENT
The order of detention passed by the Police Commissionerof Rajkot (Respondent No.3 herein) on 13th January 1995 undersec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act,1985 ('the PASA' for brief) is under challenge in this petitionunder Art. 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance ofthe petitioner himself.
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the factsgiving rise to this petition. It appears that respondent No.3was of the opinion that the petitioner was acting in a mannerprejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Thereupon the impugned order of detention came to be passed and the petitionerwas apprehended on the very day of the order. A copy of theimpugned order of detention is at Annexure A to this petitionand a copy of the grounds for detention is at Annexure Bthereto.
3. Learned Advocate Shri Shah for the petitioner has urged before me several submissions in support of this petition. Thesubmission which has impressed me most is the one based onrelease of the petitioner on parole on two occasions withoutimposing any stringent conditions. In support of his aforesaidsubmission, Shri Shah for the petitioner has relied on theDivision Bench decision of this court in the case of DilipkumarAmrutlal Ganatra v. The District Magistrate, Rajkot and Othersreported in 1992(2) 33(2) G.L.R. 1471 and the unreportedDivision Bench ruling of this court in Special CriminalApplication No. 1457 of 1994 decided on 30thJanuary 1995. Ithas been held in the aforesaid Division Bench rulings thatrelease of the detenu on parole without imposing stringentconditions at the relevant time would render unjustified thecontinued detention of the detenu under the order of detention.
4. In the present case, the petitioner was admittedlyreleased twice on parole. On the first occasion he was releasedon parole for 7 days from 4th March to 10th March 1995 on theground of his mother's demise. On the second time he wasreleased on parole for 6 days from 28th April 1995 to 3rd May1995 on the ground of the death of his male cousin. On neitheroccasion stringent conditions were imposed at the time of hisrelease on parole. It cannot be gainsaid that when a person ischarged with acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenanceof public order, stringent conditions are required to be imposedat the time of his release on parole.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Dave for therespondents has submitted that parole was given to thepetitioner on both the occasions on humanitarian grounds and itwas not thought fit to impose any stringent conditions onhumanitarian grounds keeping in mind the mental frame of thedetenu at the relevant time. Release of the petitioner onparole without imposition of stringent conditions on theoccasion of his mother's demise might be justifiable but not atthe time of his male cousin's death. It is not the case of therespondents that, though the detenu has been branded as abootlegger in the impugned order of detention, a vigil was keptto see whether or not he was attempting or trying to indulge inany bootlegging activities during his parole period. In thatview of the matter, release on parole of the petitioner withoutimposition of any stringent conditions or without keeping vigilover his activities during the parole period would render thecontinued detention of the petitioner unjustified in view of the aforesaid two binding Division Bench rulings.
6. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinionthat the impugned order of detention at Annexure A to thispetition cannot be sustained in law and it has to be quashed andset aside.
7. In the result, this petition is accepted. The detenu isordered to be released forthwith if no longer required in anyother case. The rule is accordingly made absolute with noorder as to costs. Direct service is permitted.
--------