Gujarat High Court
Kuldeepsinh Karansinh Vaghela vs District Magistrate. Gandhinagar on 26 June, 2020
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
C/SCA/7755/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7755 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7756 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7162 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7546 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7667 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5743 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7302 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10011 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16273 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16302 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16908 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6812 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7728 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16264 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16404 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7028 of 2020
==========================================================
KHALILAHMED ABDUL HAMID ANSARI
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AAMIRKHAN A PATHAN(10459) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA AGP for the Respondent(s) in SCA NOS. 7755 of 2020,
7302 of 2020, 16908 of 2020, 7728 of 2020, 7028 OF 2020
MR KRUTIK PARIKH AGP for the Respondent(s) in SCA Nos. 7756 of 2020, 7667 of
2020, 10011 of 2019, 16302 of 2019, 6812 of 2020, 16264 of 2019, 16404 of 2019
MR ADITYASINH JADEJA AGP for the Respondent(s) in SCA Nos. 7162 of 2020,
7546 of 2020, 5743 of 2020, 16273 of 2019
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 26/06/2020
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. All these petitions have been filed under the Gujarat Prevention of Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 13:56:29 IST 2021 C/SCA/7755/2020 ORDER Antisocial Activities Act (for short 'the Act') at a stage where no order of detention has been passed.
2. Insofar as Special Civil Application No.7028 of 2020 is concerned, learned counsel Mr. Prajapati has invited attention of this Court to the averments that the proposal to detain the petitioner has been made and the order has been passed by the respondent No.2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Megha Chitaliya under instructions of Head Constable Mr.Ghanshyamsinh, PCB, Ahmedabad, states that proposal is pending but no order is made. Thus, the statement that the detention order is passed does not seem to be accurate.
3. It is unnecessary for this Court to address these petitions on the following decisions cited at the bar; since in view of the decision rendered in case of Piyush @ Lakahn Manojbhai Bhavsar Vs. The Police Commissioner and others in Letters Patent Appeal No.1281 of 2018 decided on 08.10.2018 holding that: "... While it is open for the appellant to file such a petition, when the order of detention is passed, if there is any ground available to challenge the same before the same is executed, but at the same time, if order of detention is not passed under the provisions of PASA Act, no such petition can be maintained seeking the relief as sought for.", all these petitions instituted at pre-detention order stage cannot be entertained.
(1) Subhash Popatlal Dave Vs. Union of India and Another [(2014) 1 SCC 280] (2) Suresh @ Sukho Jagubhai Patel through Vipul Amrutbhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others [(2011) 2 GLH 616] (3) State of Maharshtra and Others Vs. Bhaurao Punjabrao Gawande [(2008) 3 SCC 613];
(4) Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 496]; (5) Mohmeddanis Anwarahmed Rajput Vs. State of Gujarat [Letters Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 13:56:29 IST 2021 C/SCA/7755/2020 ORDER Patent Appeal No.1694 of 2019, decision dated 03.10.2019]; (6) Ramju Rafikbhai Daireya through uncle Gaffarbhai Abdulbhai Ganchi (Duareya) Vs. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No.7249 of 2020, decision dated 09.06.2020]; (7) Vijaysinh @ Gatti Pruthvisinh Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No.5664 of 2014 and other allied matters, decision dated 03.12.2014];
(8) Rameshbhai Jagubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat [Letters Patent Appeal No.1339 of 2018];
(9) Jignesh Alias Lalo Shashikantbhai Chotalal Dabheliya Vs. State of Gujarat [2019(1) GLR 457];
(10) Mehtab Aharar Sikandar Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat [2014 Cr.L.J. 2384];
(11) Poonamben @ Tasleem D/o. Ajitsingh Rana Vs. State of Gujarat [Special Civil Application No.1606 of 2019, decision dated 06.03.2020].
4. According to learned counsel Mr.Mujmudar since the case of Piyush (supra) was eventually withdrawn, the proposition of law cannot be said to have been laid as above in the said decision. This Court is unable to accede to the said submission for the simple reason that the statement of law is found in the order and was maintained even while allowing the withdrawal of the same.
5. The petitions are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Needless to say that the cases where orders are passed the petition would be maintainable as per the settled legal position and therefore the liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file the petition again at pre-execution stage after the orders are passed.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J) Sompura/niru/songara Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Sun Feb 21 13:56:29 IST 2021