Gujarat High Court
Mulchandbhai Shobhrajmal Ganvani vs The Secretary To Government Of Gujarat ... on 6 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1991)1GLR421
JUDGMENT J.U. Mehta, J.
1. The present petitioner who is the detenu has challenged the order of detention, dated 28-8-1990 passed by respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980. The order of detention is annexed at Annexure "A" to the petitioner. The grounds on which the order of detention is passed are annexed at Annexure "B".
2. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that in the present case, the detaining authority, while supplying the documents along with the ground of detention, supplied illegible copies of the relevant documents which affected the right of the detenu for making an effective representation and thus resulted in the infringement of the right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and, therefore, the order of detention be quashed and set aside. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, invited our tension to page 1 of the compilation supplied to the detenu, which is a statement of one Harpaldas Shobhrajmal recorded on 4-2-1990.
4. We have perused the said statement and we find that it is absolutely illegibler. The said statement was also shown to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and he fairly conceded that the statement which is supplied to the detenu is illegible. It is stated in the grounds of detention at Para 15 that "because you can represent your case against the detention, statements, panchnamas and other documents on which the detention order has been passed, are supplied to you which are from pages 1 to 457 in batch No. 1". So far as this statement of Harpaldas is concerned, it is given in Batch No. 1 at page 1.
5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner invited our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Dharmishta Bhagat v. State of Karnatakam, reported in 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 155, wherein it is laid down that it is imperative that me detaining authority must, serve the grounds of detention which include also all the relevant document which had been considered in forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining autiiority before making the order of detention, and referred to in the list of documents accompanying the grounds of detention in order to enable the detenu to make an effective representation to the Advisory Board as wellas to the detaining authority. Hence the failure on the part of me detaining authority to supply legible copy of the said relevant document to the detenu for making an effective representation infringed the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In our opinion, in the present case also the right of the detenu to make as effective representation is infringed by not supplying a legible copy of the aforesaid document.
In the result, mis petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention, dated 28-8-1990 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner-detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if not required for any other case. Rule is made absolute.