Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND S. MOHAN, JJ.
Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat and others, Respondents.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 387-388 of 1993 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) Nos. 111-112 of 1993), D/-12-5-1993.
Held, that the dangerous or anti social activities arc legislatively recognised to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The enumerated activities hereinbefore referred to are not isolated, but being indulged in from time to time adversely affecting the public order and even tempo. The Dist. Magistrate concerned, being the highest Dist. officer on the spot and the Commissioner of Police in the cities have statutory duty to maintain public order. Therefore, with a view to have then affectively dealt with, to move swiftly where public order is affected or apprehended and to take action expeditiously instead of laying information with the Govt. on each occasion and eagerly awaiting action at State Govt. level, the State Govt. having exercised the power under section, 3(2) conferred on the Dist. Magistrate or the Commissioner the power to order detention under section 3(1) when he considers or deems necessary to detain any person involved in any of the dangerous or anti social activities enumerated herein before, prejudicially affecting or "likely to affect the maintenance of public order". The later clause lay emphasis on immediacy and promptitude and the authorised officer on the spot is the best Judge to subjectively satisfy from the facts and ground situation and take preventive measure to maintain public order.
So long as the activities of bootlegger, dangerous person, drug offender, immoral traffic offender and property grabber persist within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the concerned Dist. Magistrate and Commissioners of Police, as the case may be, and being directly responsible to maintain public order and to deal with depraved person to prevent anti social and dangerous activities which affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, the necessity would exist. Therefore, the question of periodical review of delegation of the order does not appear to be warranted. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to reject the contention that the delegation to the authorised officer is illegal or invalid. (para 3)
(ii) Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 - Sections 3(1) & 3(2) Detention under - Grabbing of Govt. lands by the petitioners firm, a fictitious one - Mutation of the names in the revenue, record got made fraudulently - Created sales in favour of third parties, violating the law and order of status quo - Creating or likely to create disturbance to public order - Power of detention exercised u/s. 3(1) correctly, justifiably and legally. (Para 5)
(iii) Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 3(1) - Detention order - Representation made received by the State Govt. on Feb. 20, 1993 - Action of the State Govt. in keeping the representation without being considered and disposed of expeditiously, awaiting the decision of the Board till March 20 1993, and thereafter rejecting it, is illegal- Order of detention liable to be set aside.
(Para 11)
(iv) Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 - Section 3 - Detention order. Not -approved within 12 days after execution of the detention order – Order becomes nonest - Subsequent confirmation by the Board or by State Govt. - Not to validate the order. (Paras 10 & 11)
Judgment
K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- Since common questions of law arise from the same facts, the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. In exercise of the powers under S. 3(1) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 16 of 1985, for short PASA and the notification of the Govt. of Gujarat under S. 3(2) dated May 20, 1985, the District Magistrate, Rajkot by his proceedings dated September 22, 1992 ordered detention of the appellants on his finding that "from the evidence produced before me I am satisfied as per the definition of property grabber under S. 2(h) of the PASA and considering the seriousness of your activities under S. 2(I) for the unauthorised structures.... it clearly appears that you are habitual to grab the Govt. land by creating false partnership firm ......People are feeling insecurity of their properties. The situation in this case is very tense. and in such circumstances if any actions are taken according to law then there is great possibility of great blast and public order is likely to be adversely affected. For creating such situation your illegal activities are solely liable. Therefore, to prevent the other properties being grabbed in future by you and also to prevent the Govt. lands being garbbed in future and for the exigencies which have arisen, it is necessary to detain you as per the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 and an order has been passed therefor. "With detailed reasons running into 31 pages, the detaining authority enumerated the circumstances under which the detention order came to be made. It was stated that the land admeasuring 58,880 sq. yards in Survey No. 5004 belonging to the Govt. has been grabbed by Girdhar Joshi and Manu Bhai Vora. Manu Bhai Vora created a false partnership firms by name "Jayaprabha Traders" to which the appellants and Prashant Manubhai Vora (Manubhai Voras son) are partners. The lands admeasuring 4,800 sq. yards in Plot No. 4 known as Madir of Sheet No. 226, City Survey No. 3959 in Ward No. 7 of Rajkot originally belongs to the former State. It was purchased by one Gopalji D. Doshi from the former ruler for residential purpose. But within the prescribed time, as per the then existing rules, no construction was made. Consequently the State had confiscated the said property in Order No. 8336 of S. Y. 1995 i.e. 1938-39. Naginadas Laxmichand Doshi and Manu Bhai Vora in collusion with City Survey Superintendent created forged documents mutating the aforesaid lands by the order of the City Survey Superintendent, dated April 28, 1968 in the name of Jayaprabha Traders. On May 6, 1969 the above partnership was created and was got registered on October 22, 1969. The appellants and Prashant M. Vora were partners therein. Manubhai Vora is the man behind the scheme. The partnership was dissolved on February 28, 1974. Yet in the name of the partnership the Govt. lands are being grabbed. The department came to know the collusive acts for the first time on August 26, 1986 and necessary particulars were collected to find whether it is a Govt. property or belongs to the aforesaid persons. The record disclosed that it is the Govt. property and orders were issued on December 14, 1987 cancelling the mutation and also confiscated the property to the Govt. After becoming aware of the activities Munabhai Vora and Naginadas Laxmichand Joshi were detained. The appellants and Prashant M. Vora, though were given show cause notice (sic) him for hearing, neither they availed of it nor produced any evidence in support of their claim. After considering the material the Collector exercising suo motu revisional power under Bombay Revenue Code by order dated December 14, 1987 concluded that the property belongs to the Govt. and was confiscated to the State. The appellants and P.M. Vora as partners of the dissolved partnership firm and in their individual capacity filed appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on February 28, 1987, giving their add
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
