( 1 ) NAGINBHAI Ishvarbhai Patel the husband of the petitioner has been detained under the order dated 25/12/1992 passed by the Commissioner of Police Baroda City Respondent No 2 herein under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (for short PASA Act) on the ground that detenu Naginbhai is a dangerous person and with a view of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary to detain him The petitioner being the wife of the detenu has challenged that order.

( 2 ) THE present petition has been moved by the petitioner on 1/06/1993 i. e. during summer vacation. The matter has thereafter adjourned from time to time Accordingly once it was adjourned to 8/07/1993 At that time Mr. B. T. Rao the learned Advocate for the petitioner was not present The court found that Mr. Rao had not been attending to this matter since last some adjournal dates and therefore the court passed the order dated 8/07/1993 which reads as under : In this matter Shri B. T. Rao L. A. for the petitioner has not been attending since last some adjourned dales. The matter therefore is lingering unnecessarily. We distressingly take note of these facts Today we have gone through the petition the detention order the grounds of detention etc. Prima facie we are not satisfied about there being any merit in the petition. However with a view to seeing that no injustice is done to the petitioner we now direct the Ld. A. P. P. Mr. S. P. Dave who appears in the matter to call for the file about the detention of the detenu and produce it for our perusal and for that purpose the matter is adjourned to 12/07/1993 That order was passed by us after going through the petition and the papers annexed hereto. With a view to seeing that no injustice was done to the detenu or the petitioner we had while passing that orders directed Mr. S. P. Dave Ld. APP to call for the file above detention of the detenu and to produce the same for our perusal on the next adjourned date i. e. on 12/07/1993 On 12/07/1993 at the request of Mr. B. T. Rao L. A. for the petitioner we adjourned the matter to 15/07/1993 Thereafter also the matter came to be adjourned on the ground of sickness of Mr. Rao and other allied grounds. The matter has been taken up today for hearing We have heard Mr. Rao the learned Advocate for the petitioner at sufficient length. We have also perused the files about the detention of the detenu. Those files are two in number. One is the file of papers constituted by the detaining authority and the other is the file of papers constituted by the State Government.

( 3 ) MR. Rao L. A. for the petitioner firstly submitted that this being a habeas corpus petition directed against the detention of the detenu we should admit the petition and issue Rule to the respondents as a matter of course To buttress his argument Mr. Rao relied upon- (a) Smt. Icchu Devi Choraria v Union of India and Others AIR 1980 S. C. p. 1983. and (b) Mohinuddin v District Magistrate Beed and Others : AIR 1987 S. C. p. 1977 we have gone through these judgments and we find that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that even in the elaborate arguments levelled by Mr. Rao there is not even a whisper about the technical procedural safeguard in having been volant in the matter of passing of the detention order against the detenu and more particularly in view of the fact that the two files produced by Mr. S. P. Dave. Ld. APP for our persual also do not go to show any breach of any technical procedural safeguards contemplated by the provisions of the PASA Act and Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India we do not think that any of the two judgments relied upon by Mr. Rao which are referred to by us hereinabove would require us to formally admit the petition issue Rule and then aet the petition down for hearing.

( 4 ) TRUE in a habeas corpus petition directed in the matter of detention of the