LexJAHANGIRKHAN FAZALKHAN PATHAN versus POLICE COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
., • ... --4 ' JAHANGIRKHAN FAZALKHAN PATHAN V. POLICE COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD & ANOTHER JULY 27, 1989 IB.C. RAY ANDS. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985: Section 3( /)-Detention-Order cannot be made after considering previous grounds of detention quashed by Court. A B ··-r· Vague averments made in grounds of detention-Bad in law: c ~- The petitioner was detained on October 12, 1988 under Section 3( 1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The grounds of detention and documents mentioned therein were served on him on the date of detention. D Earlier, the petitioner was detained in 1985 under the National Security Act, 1980 and was released. Again in 1986 he was detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. On a writ petition, the Gujarat High Court quashed the detention order and released him. These two detention orders were also taken into consi- deration by the Detaining Authority in arriving al his subjective E satisfaction as regards detention of the petitioner in 1988. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the detention order passed on 12.10.88 on the grounds that the order was vitiated since the Detaining Authority relied upon earlier detention§ in arriving at his subjective satisfaction, non-disclosure of names and addresses of witnesses whose statements were mentioned ii! the grounds or detention and the vagueness of the statements made in the grounds of detention. F On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that though the earlier two detention orders were mentioned in the grounds of detention G they were not considered by him in forming his subjective satisfaction '( for clamping the order of detention. Allowing the \\' rit Petition, HELD: 1. It is now well settled that while comidering the scope of H 583 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 119891 3 S.C.R. A Section 15 of the Act the modification and revocation of detention order by the State Government shall not bar making of another detention order on fresh facts when the period of detention bas come to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention. But an order of detention cannot be made after considering the previous grounds of detention when the same had been quashed by the court, and B if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consideration while forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in making a detention order, 'the order of detention will be vitiated. It is of no c consequence if the further fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of the · impugned detention order have been considered. [588F-G; 589A-BI ~ Abdul Latif Abdul Waheb Sheikh v. B.K. Jha and Anr., [198712 SCC 22 and Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. Shri N.L. Kaina & Ors., JT 1989 I SC 572, relied on. 2. In the instant case, admittedly in the grounds of detention specific reference has been made to the earlier two orders of detention D made in 1985 and 1986 against the petitioner. The contention that though the earlier two detention orders have been mentioned in the grounds of detention and the copy of the orders passed in the previous detention cases as well as the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu, yet these were not at all considered by the detaining authority in forming his subjective satisfaction for clamping the order of detention, E cannot be sustained in view of the statements made in the grounds of detention. [589C-EI .3. The other grounds regarding the vagueness of the averments made in the grounds about the petitioner indulging in criminal activities apart from the five criminal cases lodged under the Prohibition Act and F mentioned in the grounds of detention do not satisfy the requirements envisaged in s. 3( I) of the Act inasmuch as the said five specific criminal cases have no connection with the maintenance of public order. The aforesaid criminal activity does not appear to have disturbed the even tempo of life of the people of the particular locality. These statements are vague and without any particulars and such vague averments made G in the grounds of detention are bad inasmuch as the detenu could not make an effective representation against the impugned order of<leten- tion. As such the detention order is illegal and bad. [589F-HI H Abdul Razak Nanhekhan Pathan v. The, Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & An
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.