Back
1989 Supreme(Guj) 146
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :S.B.MAJMUDAR, V.H.BHAIRAVIA
MUNNA IDUBHAI SHAIKH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S.C.A. 659 of 1988
Decided On : 09/12/1989
Headnote:
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1989 – Section 3 (2) – Bombay Prohibition Act – Grounds of detention – Illegal – Detention order was served on petitioner by detaining authority along with grounds of detention – Detaining authority relied on four criminal cases filed against detenu under Bombay Prohibition Act – Detaining authority also referred to previous history of detenu and criminal proceedings filed against him – Period from 1984 to 1989 was considered for his anti-social activities – Criminal proceedings taken in years were also taken into consideration – Not only that but detention order passed on was also taken into consideration – That order was set aside by this Court – Detaining authority has considered criminal activities of detenu and passed im- pugned detention order – All this material is supplied to detenu along with the detention order – But a copy of judgment of this Court as alleged was not supplied to detenu along- with detention order – Held, this petition is bound to succeed on ground that detaining authority though has relied on fresh grounds as mentioned in grounds of detention he has referred previ- ous orders passed against detenu right from 1984 to 1989 – Detaining authority has also referred to judgment and order passed by his Court also but copy of said judgment was not supplied to detenu – Detenu was supplied rest of material relied on by detaining authority along with order of detention – It is not open to detaining authority to lake into consideration previous activities of detenu which have already been con- cluded by appropriate proceedings taken out against detenu – When detaining authority has relied on fresh facts and grounds it was not necessary for detaining authority to refer to previous orders – Al most same may be referred to as a background for showing crimi- nal activities of detenu but cannot be made basis or ground for detention of detenu for drawing requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once Court strikes down an earlier order in nullifies entire order – Detaining authority ought to have placed reliance on fresh grounds available to it only – Hence impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed and set aside as same is illegal and wrong and hence continued detention of detenu is illegal – Ordered Accordingly
( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the detention order No. PCB/dtn/pasa/38a/1989 dated 17-6-1989 passed by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad City under Section 3 (2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the PASA Act.)
( 2 ) THE detention order was served on the petitioner by the detaining authority along with the grounds of detention. The detaining authority relied on four criminal cases filed against the detenu under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The detaining authority also referred to the previous history of the detenu and the criminal proceedings filed against him. Period from 1984 to 1989 was considered for his anti-social activities. Criminal proceedings taken in the years 1984 1986 and 1987 were also taken into consideration. Not only that but detention order passed on 29-7-1987 was also taken into consideration. That order was set aside by this Court. The detaining authority has considered the criminal activities of the detenu and passed the im- pugned detention order. All this material is supplied to the detenu along with the detention order. But a copy of the judgment of this Court as alleged was not supplied to the detenu along- with the detention order.
( 3 ) XXX xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
( 4 ) XXX xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
( 5 ) THIS petition is bound to succeed on the ground that the detaining authority though has relied on the fresh grounds as mentioned in the grounds of detention he has referred the previ- ous orders passed against the detenu right from 1984 to 1989. The detaining authority has also referred to the judgment and order passed by his Court also but copy of the said judgment was not supplied to the detenu. The detenu was supplied rest of the material relied on by the detaining authority along with the order of detention. It is not open to the detaining authority to lake into consideration the previous activities of the detenu which have already been con- cluded by appropriate proceedings taken out against the detenu. When the detaining authority has relied on fresh facts and grounds it was not necessary for the detaining authority to refer to the previous orders. Al the most the same may be referred to as a background for showing crimi- nal activities of the detenu but cannot be made basis or ground for detention of the detenu for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once the Court strikes down an earlier order in nullifies the entire order. The detaining authority ought to have placed reliance on the fresh grounds available to it only. Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed and set aside as the same is illegal and wrong and hence continued detention of the detenu is illegal.
( 6 ) XXX xxx xxx xxx xxx
.
