G. T. NANAVATI, M. B. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an instance where detention order is dealt with by the officers of State Government in a casual and cavalier fashion

( 2 ) THE detenu has challenged the detention order dated 1-6-85 passed by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City under sec. of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Ordinance 1985 The grounds of detention are annexed to the petition at Annexure `b wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was required to be detained because he was a person known for illegally selling liquor and that because of the said activity fear and terror in the mind of the persons staying in the locality was created. Three instances of prohibition cases in which the detenu was acquitted are relied upon and also one case wherein investigation was not complete is relied upon. It is also admitted that along with the grounds of detention the statements of two police constables were furnished to the detenu wherein in identical terms they have stated that the detenu was indulging in selling liquor illegally and that he was required to be detained as because of this activity he was creating fear and terror in the mind of the persons residing in the locality.

( 3 ) AT the time when the matter came up for admission this Court passed the following order :"rule returnable on 2-9-85. Affidavit-in-reply if any shall be filed on or before 26 Immediate service "inspite of the specific direction that the affidavit was to be filed on or before 26-8-85 no affidavit-in-reply was filed. Subsequently on 12 an application for amendment of the petition was filed which was granted on the said date. As per the amendment it was contended that the petitioner had made representation against the detention order on 29-7-85 and the said representation was not considered by the Government till to-day. We directed the Public Prosecutor to file an affidavit-in-reply dealing with the said ground of challenge to the petition. Time was given to file an affidavit-in-reply upto 16-9-85. The learned Public Prosecutor required for further time on 16-9-85 and the matter was adjourned to 17-9-85. On 17-9 85 also no affidavit -in-reply was filed. Therefore the matter was adjourned to 19-9-B5 and the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to file affidavit before that date. It is the say of Mr. Trivedi that he had prepared a draft affidavit and sent it to Mr. Parmar Under Secretary Home Department on 17-9-85 but Mr. Parmar had refused to file has affidavit in the master and he had returned it to him on 19-9-85. He therefore contacted the Secretary Home Department on 19-9-85 and sought instructions whether or not any affidavit was required to be filed. It is his say that the Secretary Home Department informed him that the Deputy Secretary Home Department would file the necessary affidavit.

( 4 ) IT is the say of Mr. Trivedi that on the next day Mr. Randhawa Deputy Secretary contacted him and he gave the draft affidavit to him for swearing. On 20-9-85 Mr. Randhawa was in the High Court premises for the whole day. Mr. Trivedi was informed that it was not necessary for Mr. Randhawa to file the affidavit-in-reply but the Under Secretary Mr. Parmar would file the affidavit. Till to-day no affidavitin-reply is filed. Inspite of all the sincere efforts made by the learned Public Prosecutor he has failed to get a proper reply or the affidavitin-reply from the Home Department.

( 5 ) THE facts stated above reveal an unfortunate state of affairs. The concerned officers of the State are not prepared to file affidavitin-reply stating whether the representation of the detenu is considered or not and if it is not considered the reason why they have failed to discharge the statutory obligation. In this case it seems that no officer is prepared to shoulder the responsibility. If in the opinion of the State Government or the authorised officer it is necessary to detain a person and to deprive him of his personal liberty in the interest of societ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document