The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, which is a condition precedent to passing any detention order, must be based on a proper consideration of the material before it, and any failure to do so renders the detention order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

K.J. Vaidya, J.

The petitioner Rabari Karsan Bavan, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has brought in challenge the impugned order of detention dated 5-11-1990 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short-PASA) passed by the District Magistrate, Junagadh, inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the same setting him at liberty forthwith.

2. To state few relevant facts briefly, it has been alleged in the grounds of detention that the anti-social activities carried on by the petitioner were of such a nature which clearly fell within the meaning of Section 2(c) of PASA, and that because of the same, had disturbed the public order in the area of Junagadh city. In the grounds of detention, it has been further alleged that as many as four criminal cases have been registered-against him as tabulated in a chart hereunder.

It has been further alleged that despite the above offences having been registered against the petitioner, he on being released on bail, has continued his anti-social activities in the area. In support of the said allegations, five witnesses while appearing before the police have given their secret statements with a request that as they were afraid of the petitioner putting their lives and properties in danger, the said statements be kept secret. The detaining authority after fully taking into consideration the material placed before it, was satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous person and that in order to prevent him immediately from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, it was necessary to pass the detention order and in that view of the matter, ultimately passed the impugned order of detention dated 5-11-1990. This order was ultimately confirmed by the State Government in due compliance with rest of the provisions contained in PASA. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention before us.

3. Mr. Satish Patel, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order or detention was liable to be quashed and struck down on very many points as raised in the petition, but he would like to place in fore-front the contention which has been taken up in the later part of para-10 of the petition. Mr. Patel inviting our attention to the C.R. No. 52/89 of Junagadh Police Station, which is reproduced at Sr.No. 2 in the tabulated chart above, submitted that though the same was in respect of offences under Sections 324, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, further the same has been shown to have been proved against the petitioner, yet quite surprisingly, on seeing the copy of the judgment and order of the said C.R. No. it appears that the petitioner was convicted only for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and was fined 5/- only. In substance, in the copy of the judgment supplied to the petitioner, it is nowhere shown that he was convicted for the offences under Sections 324, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code Thus, despite such a glaring discrepancy, as between the statement made in the grounds of detention and the copy of the judgment in the said C.R. No. supplied to the petitioner, the detaining authority has mechanically passed the order of detention.