Gujarat High Court
SCA/5716/1995 of YASHWANTRAI U TRIVEDI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT THRO' ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY on 15 September 1995
1 Date of Decision: 15th September 1995 SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5716 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? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships
-#-
.FO 1
���Date of Decision: 15th September 1995
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5716 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? No
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 D.C. Dave, Asst. Govt. Pleader, for Respondents Nos. 1,2and 3
Shri B.B. Naik, Standing Counsel for the Central Government,for Respondent No.4
----------------------------------------------------------------CORAM: A.N. DIVECHA, J.(Date: 15th 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 District Magistrate of Bhavnagar (respondent No.3 herein) on 27th May 1995 undersec. 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ('the Act' forbrief) is under challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of theConstitution of India at the instance of the detenu himself.
2. It is not necessary to set out in detail the factsgiving rise to this petition. It may be sufficient to note thatrespondent No.3, with a view to preventing the petitioner fromcarrying on his nefarious activities within the purview of theAct, passed the impugned order of detention under sec. 3thereof on 27th May 1995. He was required to be detained andkept in the Central Jail at Vadodara. Soon thereafter he wasapprehended and sent to the central jail at Vadodara. He wassupplied with the grounds of detention soon thereafter. Itappears that the petitioner's representations against hisdetention were turned down and the Advisory Board also opined infavour of his continued detention. Thereupon the StateGovernment confirmed his detention. The petitioner hasthereupon approached this court by means of this petition underArt. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning thelegality and validity of his detention under the Act.
3. Several submissions have been urged in support of thispetition. It is not necessary to deal with all of them as thispetition can be disposed of on one short ground based onnon-supply of bills referred to in the grounds of detention.
4. In this connection a reference deserves to be made tothe Division Bench ruling of this court in the case of BudhabhaiSomabhai Parmar v. District Magistrate, Kheda and Othersreported in 30(1) 1989(1) G.L.R. 325. In that case, non-supplyof bills constituting basic facts and referred to in the groundsof detention was considered to be fatal to continued detentionof the detenu on the reasoning that such non-supply has deniedto the detenu an opportunity of making effective representationagainst his detention. Sitting as a single Judge, the aforesaidDivision Bench ruling of this court is binding to me. Evenotherwise, I am in respectful agreement therewith. It is on allfours applicable in the present case. The bills referred to inthe grounds of detention are admittedly not supplied to thepetitioner despite his demand for them in his representations.Such non-supply has vitiated the continued detention of thepetitioner as he was deprived of and denied an opportunity ofmaking an effective representation against his detention.
5. In the result, this petition is accepted. Thepetitioner is ordered to be released from detention forthwith ifno longer required in any other case. Rule is accordingly madeabsolute with no order as to costs. Direct service ispermitted.