CHHAGAN BAGWAN KAHAR versus N.L. KALNA & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 16-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CHHAGAN BAGW AN KAHAR 
v. 
N.L. KALNA & ORS. 
MARCH 16, 1989 
[B.C. RAY AND S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.) 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 19/j5: Sections 3 
and 15-Expiry or revocation of an earlier detention order-No bar for 
making a subsequent detention order-Necessity for fresh facts for pas-
sing subsequent detention order. 
) 
1 
With a view to preventing the petitioner detenu from acting in any 
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, an order of ~ 
detention was passed against him by the Comissioner of Police, Surat 
City, under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social 
Activities Act, 1985. The grounds of detention referred to the detenn's 
criminal activities connected ·with bootlegging on a large scale and in an 
organised manner, and the several cases registered and pending against 
him on that account. The detenu's representations were dismissed by 
the Isl respondent and the State Government. 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Detaining . -+ 
Authority for drawing his requisite subjective satisfaction had taken 
into consideration the previous grounds of detention which were the 
,.. 
subject matter of a Special Criminal Application before the Gujarat 
;.' 
High Court, and the High Court had quashed the order of detention 
impugned in that case. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of 
the respondents that the earlier proceeding was considered only to a 
)<:. 
'(' 
limited purpose of taking note of the detenu's continued involvement in 
. 
bootlegging activities. 
,~ 
Allowing the writ petition, and quashing the detention order it 
was, 
HELD: (l) Even if the order of detention comes to an end either 
by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention there must be fresh 
facts for passing a subsequent order. [580 I 
Ghulam Nambi Zaki v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1970) 3 SCR 
35; Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack & Anr., [196~) I 
SCR 227; Har las Dev Singh v. State of Punjab, [1974) I SCR 281 and 
52 
J 
C.B. KAHAR v. N.L. KALNA 
53 
Chotka Hembram v. State of West Bengal, [1974] 3 SCC 401, referred 
to. 
(2) A fortiori when a detention order is quashed by the Court issu-
ing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari, the grounds 
of the said order should not be taken into consideration either as a 
whole or in part even alongwith the fresh grounds of detention for draw-
ing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because 
once the Court strikes down an earlier order by issuing a rule it nullities 
the entire order. [58D-E] 
Ibrahim Bachu Bafan v. State of Gujarat, [1985] 2 SCC 24, 
followed. 
--f-
(3) It is imperative therefore to read down section 15 of the Act 
which provides for the making of successive orders of detention so as to 
bring it in conformity with Article 22(4) of the Constitution. l59C I 
Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Iha & Anr., [1987] 2 
sec 22 followed. 
(4) In the present case, no doubt, the order of detention contains 
fresh facts. In addition, the detaining authority has taken into con-
sideration the earlier grounds of detention which grounds had been 
nullitied by the High Court by issuing a prerogative writ of habeas 
corpus. A copy of the earlier grounds of detention was also one of 
the documents furnished to the detenu which confirms the fact that 
the detaining authority has considered the earlier grounds of detention 
alongwith other documents for drawing his requisite subjective satisfac-
X 
ti on for passing the detention order. The order of detention is vitiated 
on that ground, and is therefore liable to be set aside. [58F, G; 59F-G I 
·~ 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 61 
of 1989. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
·1. 
V.V. Vaze, M.K. Pandit and P.H. Parekh for the Petitioner. 
P.S. Poti, M.N. Shroff and Mrs. H. Wahi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
S. RATNA VEL PANDIAN, J. This petition under Article 32 of .t 
the Constitution of lndia is filed by the petitioner, the detenu herein, 
challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 
21.10.1988 passed by the detaining authority (the Commissioner of 
Police, Surat City) clamping upon the detenu the above said order of 
detention under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prev

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.