Gujarat High Court
SCA/6659/2001 of RAMESH PRATAPBHAI CHAUDHRY Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 18 December 2001
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6659 of 2001 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6659 of 2001
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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMESH PRATAPBHAI CHAUDHRY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
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. Special Civil Application No. 6659 of 2001 MR MM TIRMIZI for Petitioner No. 1 MRS HANSABEN PUNANI, AGP for Respondents No. 1-3
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA
Date of decision: 18/12/2001
ORAL JUDGEMENT
The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1985') by the order dated 2-6-2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Mehsana, 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 of the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 491.
3. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner at length and learned AGP, Mrs.Hansaben Punani for the respondents. I have also perused the material on record. Learned advocate for the petitioner has stated that three offences have been registered against the detenu and last case was registered on 18-3-2001 and the order of detention was passed on 2-6-2001 and hence, there is a delay of two and half months in passing the order. He has relied upon a judgment delivered by this Court reported in 1997(1) G.L.H. page 381 in the case of Elesh Nandubhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Ors. more particularly at para 21 which reads as under:
"There appears to be some substance in the contention of the petitioner that these two unregistered cases have been referred only with a view to cover up the gap or to give life to a stale case. This unexplained delay makes a ground of detention not proximate, vitiating the order of detention itself. If I am to buttress my findings, I would say the reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Prakash V. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1990 SC 516 and Pradeep Nilkanth Vs. S. Ramamurthy reported in 1993(2) Suppl. SCC 61."
4. It appears that last offence registered against the petitioner was on 18-3-2001 and order of detention was passed on 2-6-2001 based on this offence and hence, there is a delay of two and half months in passing the order from the last registered offence. No satisfactory explanation has been putforth by the detaining authority for the delay caused in passing the order of detention. Therefore, in view of the above judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the order of detention is illegal and the same cannot be sustained. Learned advocate for the petitioner does not press any other points.
Conclusion
5. The petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 2-6-2001 passed against the detenu is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu Ramesh Pratapbhai Chaudhry 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. Direct service is permitted. �����(R.P.DHOLAKIA,J.)
radhan/