SAVABHAI KARSANBHAI NADIA FATHER OF DETENU DINESH ALIAS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 08/05/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT #. The petitioner - Dinesh @ Duni Savabhai Nadia, has been detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA Act" for short) by virtue of an order passed by Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the PASA Act, dated August 2, 1999. #. The grounds of detention indicate that the detaining authority took into consideration 4 offences under the IPC and 2 offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, registered against the petitioner. The detaining authority also took into consideration the statements of two anonymous witnesses and came to conclusion that the petitioner is "bootlegger" as well as "dangerous person" that his activities are detrimental to public order, that fear expressed by the witnesses qua the petitioner was genuine and therefore, powers under section 9(2) of the PASA Act were exercised by the detaining authority by not disclosing identity of these witnesses. #. The petitioner has challenged this order of detention on various counts.

However, learned advocate for the petitioner has restricted his arguments to the fact that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority for the need for exercise of powers under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act, cannot be considered as genuine. In order to substantiate this submission, learned counsel submitted that the statements of two anonymous witnesses were recorded on July 28, 1999 and July 30, 1999, which were verified by the detaining authority on August 2, 1999 and the order of detention is passed on August 2, 1999. Learned counsel submitted, therefore, that there was no time for the detaining authority to give consideration to the aspect of correctness and genuineness of the facts stated by the witnesses and the fear expressed by the witnesses, respectively, in their statements. The exercise of powers under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act is improper and has resulted into denial of right of making an effective representation as contemplated under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.

Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submitted that, in light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalidas Chandubhai Kahar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1993 (2) GLR 1659, this petition may be allowed. #. Mr. K.T.Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has opposed this petition. He, however, does not dispute the factual aspect of the verification of the statements having been made on August 2, 1999 and the order having been passed on the same day i.e. on August 2, 1999. #. It is clear from the grounds of detention that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the statements of two anonymous witnesses. The authority came to a conclusion that the fear expressed by these witnesses is correct and genuine and, therefore, the authority exercised powers under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act by not disclosing the identity of the witnesses. This Court is at loss to appreciate how the detaining authority could have arrived at this conclusion in such short spell.

The detaining authority has not filed any affidavit-in-reply. It is, therefore, not possible to know as to what were the factors and material considered by the detaining authority besides the statements of the anonymous witnesses to come to conclusion that the fear expressed by the witnesses was genuine, that the incidents stated by the witnesses were correct and that there was need for exercise of powers under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act. #. Similar such situation arose before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kalidas Chandubhai Kahar (supra), where the statements were verified on 16th October, 1992 and the order was passed on 17th October, 1992 and the Division Bench said that exercise of powers under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act was improper. This improper exercise of powers under Section 9(2) of the PASA Act was held to be detrimental to the right of the detenue of making an effective representation contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

The order of detention was, therefore, quashed. The facts of the present case squarely fall in line with the facts of that case. The order of detention, therefore stands vitiated in the instant case as well and the petition deserves to be allowed. #. So far as the cases registered against the petitioner under the IPC are concerned, they are of 1996-97 and therefore, they are stale. Apart from the cases being stale, they indicate that they do not relate to public order situation being a law and order situation. So far as the prohibition cases are concerned, the statements of witnesses cited in the charge sheet having not been supplied to the detenue would affect the right of the detenue of making an effective representation. Resultantly, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority about the activities of the detenue being detrimental to public order is without any basis. Neither the statements nor the registered offences can be accepted to form the basis of this satisfaction. #. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed.

The impugned order of detention dated August 2, 1999 is hereby quashed. The detenue - Dinesh @ Duni Savabhai Nadia, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other matter. Rule is made absolute with no orders as to costs. (cid:9) (cid:9)[A.L.DAVE, J.] ***** pirzada/ (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9)