JUDGMENT

FAIZAN UDDIN, J.- This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness and validity of the detention order dated 19-8-1994 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Shahibagh, Ahmedabad city, detaining the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the petitioner-detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner has been detained in jail, Junagarh.

2. Briefly stated the alleged activities of the detenu-petitioner as set out in the grounds of detention dated 19-8-1994 are that the petitioner was habitually indulging in criminal and anti-social activities in the area of Shahpur, Patwasheri area of Teen Darwaza and Sardar Garden area of Ahmedabad city by keeping firearms, beating and assaulting innocent citizens in public and creating an atmosphere of fear and terror in the said areas. It has been alleged that the four witnesses have stated in their statement that the detenu-petitioner is a headstrong, fierce and habitual criminal and, therefore, nobody comes forward to complain against him and the said witnesses have made a request not to disclose their names and identity for fear of the petitioner and, therefore, the names and identity of the witnesses have not been disclosed in public interest under Section 9(2) of the Act. The relevant criminal activities as alleged against the detenu-petitioner are precisely detailed herein below:

S.

No.

Date &

Time

Place of

occurrence

C.R.

No.

Nature of

offence

Seizure of

incriminating

articles

Disposal

1.

24-04-93

06.30

p.m.

Glamour

Hair

Dresser

Shahpur

I 66/93

Under Sections

307, 452/34

IPC & 25(1)(a),

Arms Act &

Sections 135 (1)

of Bombay

Police Act.

__

pending

2.

11-04-94

10.30

a.m.

Shahpur of

DCB

7/94

Sections

212/214 IPC

harbouring the

absconding

offender of CR

No. 63 of 1993

of Shahpur.

__

3.

10-08-94

04.00

p.m.

Patwasheri

Area of

Teen

Darwaza

__

Purchased

goods worth

Rs 500 and on

demand of

price thereof

dragging and

beating the

businessman on

public road and

pointing revolver

towards persons

gathered there.

__

4.

12-08-94

07.00

p.m.

Eastern

Gate Sardar

Garden

__

Stopping the

witness and

beating him

doubting that he

was informing

police about his

anti-social

activities and

pointing revolver

towards persons

gathered there.

__

5.

14-08-94

07.45

p.m.

DCB

19/94

Under Section

25(1) Arms Act

Point 34

country-made

revolver and 4

cartridges

3. On the basis of the aforementioned cases and material connected therewith as well as on the basis of statements of four witnesses the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner is an anti-social element and a dangerous person within the definition of Section 2(c) of the Act who is habitually engaged in committing and attempting to commit violent activities and creating an atmosphere of fear by keeping firearms without pass/permit and with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order passed the impugned order of detention.

4. Initially Shri Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner had made representation on 26-8-1994 to the Superintendent, District Jail, Junagarh for onward transmission to the competent authorities for its disposal but the said representation of the petitioner had not been disposed of so far. But Shri P.S. Vyas, Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat, Home Department (Special) in his affidavit clearly indicated that the petitioners representation dated 26-8-1994 which was submitted by him on 31-8-1994 and received by the State Government on 5-9-1994 was decided on 6-9-1994 and since 9-10-1994 and 11-9-1994 were holidays the said decision was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 12-9-1994. Faced with this situation it was not p