Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Koli Sureshbhai Balabhai Parmar vs District Magistrate on 10 March, 2000

Dilipbhai Alias Pintoo Rajybhai Mali ... vs State Of Gujarat on 31 August, 2020

6. Pertinently, the order dated 12th February, 2020, has been passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara that is respondent No.2 Detaining Authority together with grounds as indicated in the communication dated 12th February, 2020 under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act of 1985. Clearly, the First Information Report registered for the year 2019 is one of the grounds. Further, registration of the four First Information Reports for the offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is also the ground which weighed with the Detaining Authority for passing the order dated 12 th February, 2020. The learned Assistant Government Pleader when was confronted, could not dispute the said aspect. Moreover, the petitioner has also made the representation dated 29th May, 2020 requesting for providing the said documents, which undisputedly was not supplied to the petitioner. Thus, in view of the non-supply of the documents which are very much forming the ground of the detention, the same would be fatal to continue detention of the petitioner any further. The principle laid down by this Court in the case of Koli Sureshbhai Balabhai Parmar v. District Magistrate, Bhavnagar (supra) applies on all fours to the facts of the present case. This Court in paragraph 11 has observed thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Mansukhlal Devrajbhai Tilwa vs State Of Gujarat on 31 August, 2000

"(m) The petitioner submits that the advocate of the petitioner has sent a representation addressed to the detaining authority dtd. 5.6.2000 by registered speed post on 5.6.2000. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE : "E" is the copy of the representation dtd. 5.6.2000. A zerox copy of the postal slip is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE : "F". However, the petitioner is not informed about the decision on the representation till this date. The petitioner submits that the detaining authority has to satisfy this Hon'ble High Court that the representation of the petitioner is expeditiously considered by the competent authority. The petitioner submits that failing to establish above facts, it cannot be said that the representation of the petitioner was expeditiously decided by the competent authority in accordance with law and in that case, the continued detention of the petitioner would be illegal. The petitioner has demanded certain documents which were not supplied to the petitioner as referred to in the said representation. However, the said documents though demanded are not supplied by the detaining authority to the petitioner till date. Non-supply of the said documents has deprived the right of the petitioner of making effective representation, which is violative of Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner is bad."
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - C K Buch - Full Document
1