( 1 ) THROUGH this Special Civil Application under Art. 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu seeks to challenge his detention order dated 16. 4. 1996 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City under the provisions of gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985. The detention order was executed on the same day i. e. 16. 4. 1996 and since then the petitioner-detenu is under detention.

( 2 ) THIS Special Application is filed in this Court on 30. 4. 1996 and on 1. 5. 1996 Rule returnable on 22. 7. 1996 was issued with the direction to the respondents to file an affidavit-in-reply, if they so desire. It is given out by Mr. Shukla, learned A. P. P. that the department was served with the notice of this petition on 23. 6. 1996. However, the respondents have chosen not to file any affidavit-in-reply to this petition and therefore, the factual allegations made by the petitioner-detenu in the petition remain uncontroverted. Mr. Shukla, learned APP has submitted that it has been the practice throughout to argue the detention matters without filing any affidavit-in-reply and only oral submissions are made at the time of arguments on the basis of the record available with the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor arguing the matters. It is a dismal fact that even in such matter of detention the respondents do not appear to be keen to defend the detention order by filing appropriate affidavit-in-reply to the petition. Mr. Shukla has submitted that this practice has been going on. If such a practice has been going on it must be observed that this practice on the part of the respondents in not filing the reply to the petition challenging the detention order is highly deplorable. More particularly when there are catena of decisions by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court that when the detention orders are challenged an appropriate reply must be filed and there should also be an affidavit of the detaining authority itself on the question as to whether the order has been passed after due active and objective application of the mind or not.

( 3 ) EVERY court is a guardian of its own records and master of its own practice and therefore the practice going on in the office of the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be in violation of the law laid down by this court and the practice which had been judicially recognised through judicial pronouncements at all levels. I am constrained to make this observation because even a short affidavit-in-reply has not been filed though it is stated by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the Detaining Authority had been served way back on 6. 5. 1996 and the department had been served on 23. 6. 1996. The promptitude with which the detention orders are passed is also required to be followed when the detention orders come for a judicial scrutiny before this Court on behalf of the detenu whose life and liberty stands checked. These observations are hopefully made to the respondents so as to evoke the readier response in future and not to show scant regard either to the norms and the practice laid down by the Courts order or to the life and liberty of the citizens who are detained without trial.

( 4 ) SO far as the challenge to the present detention order dated 16. 4. 1996 is concerned mr. Bhatt appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the detention order is based on the criminal case dated 19. 5. 1993 being numbered 232 of 1993 in the area of Ellisbridge police Station, dated 12. 5. 1995 being numbered 33/95 in the Police Station of Dariapur and dated 27. 7. 1995 being numbered 66/95 of Dariapur Police Station and the undisclosed statements with regard to the alleged incidents dated 22. 3. 1996 and 4. 4. 1996. It has also been submitted by Mr. Bhatt that the present petitioner-detenu has nothing to do with the Criminal Case No. 161 of 1995 dated 27. 7. 1995 of Kalupur Police Station and the petitioner-detenu was not an Accused of this case of Kalupur Police St