HARSUKHLAL UKABHAI SAVSANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH Date of decision: 25/08/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT

1.(cid:9)The petitioner abovenamed has preferred this petition under Articles 14, 19, 21, 22 and 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention of the petitioner dated 15.5.2000 passed by the third respondent directing the detention of the petitioner in Central Jail at Ahmedabad in view of the provisions made in section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.

2.(cid:9)The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows : (cid:9)That the third respondent conducted some inquiry and thereafter, came to the decision that the petitioner was required to be detained in accordance with the aforesaid provisions of law and, therefore, the said order was passed on 15.5.2000 detaining the petitioner in view of the section 3(2) of the said Act. (cid:9)The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of detention on various grounds. However, at the time of arguments learned advocate for the petitioner has restricted his arguments to the point that the documents supplied by the respondent to the petitioner were not legible and, therefore, the petitioner was prevented from making effective representation against the aforesaid order of detention and, therefore, his statutory right of making effective representation has been taken away and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the petitioner had a valuable right of making the representation against his detention and since, the petitioner was not in a position to avail of the statutory benefits, detention cannot be sustained and, therefore, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order or directions for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid order of detention dated. 15.5.2000. (cid:9)On receiving the petition, rule was issued on

12.6.2000, respondents have been served and appearance has been made on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Patel, learned AGP appeared for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4. Ms. P.J.Davawala, learned Additional Sr. Standing Counsel appeared for respondent no.2. I have heard Mr. Yatin Oza, Sr. Counsel with Mr B.P.Gupta, learned Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Patel for respondent nos.1,3, and 4 and Ms. Davawala for respondent no.2. I have perused the papers shown to me during the course of arguments by the learned advocates for the parties. Since the arguments have been restricted to the point of non-supply of legible documents to the petitioner, the discussion and decision are also restricted on this short ground to dispose of the case. (cid:9)During the course of arguments, learned Advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that certain documents with rubber stamp were not legible. Mr. Patel, learned AGP states that these rubber stamp documents were not material consideration for the decision in the matter and, therefore, it would not be very much necessary to even supply the same.

Thereafter, it has been contended that the register of retailer Mr. Pravin Parsottam was attached and the said register was considered by the competent authority while passing the aforesaid order of detention. It has been submitted that many pages of the said register are not legible. Mr. Patel learned AGP has gone through those papers and then he states that it is not true that all the pages are not legible but at the same time he states that some pages of the said register are not fully legible. According to him some names found at page nos. 100, 101, 103, 104 and 106 of the said register are not legible. (cid:9)Now, it is very clear that this register is one of the considerations for detaining the petitioner and it can be said that it is one of the foundation for arriving at a decision for detaining the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of law. Therefore, this has to be treated as material and relevant document for the purpose of deciding the matter.

Now, if the documents as aforesaid are not clearly legible, it would not be possible for the petitioner to make effective representation against his detention and to make effective representation is a statutory right of the petitioner and if that right has been taken away, it can be said that the petitioner is deprived of his statutory right of making effective representation. It is to be seen that the detention order can be passed and can also be revoked at any point of time and the same can be done only if the proper material is placed before the competent authority. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioner to make effective representation and for making effective representation, it is necessary to have all materials. As stated above, some documents are not fully legible and, therefore, it was not be possible for the petitioner to know the contents of the said pages of the said documents and it was not be possible for the petitioner to make effective representation.

(cid:9)In this view of the matter I find a decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 618 of 1999 dated 3.3.2000 (Coram : B.C.Patel,J). Para. 3 of the said judgment reads as follows : Without addressing about legality of the grounds of detention, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petition is required to be disposed of on a short ground as the papers supplied to the detenu are not legible. In view of this, the detenu is deprived from making effective representation. He further stated that the all papers are not illegible but some papers are illegible and as a result of which, his right has been adversely affected. Mr. Patel, learned AGP after going through the papers, is not in a position to state that all the papers are legible, some of the papers are illegible. Suffice it to say that the same has deprived the detenu from making effective representation and hence the detention order requires to be quashed and set aside.