Allowed

Pravinaben Alias Pavli Ganpat Thakore v. Commissioner of Police Vadodara

Gujarat HC4 Aug 2005SCA/9579/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special civil application challenging a preventive detention order passed under the Gujarat Prevention Anti-Social Activities Act for alleged bootlegging activities. The court held that the unexplained delay of almost one month from the last registered offence vitiated the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 26.04.2005 is quashed; the petitioner is set at liberty forthwith.

Pravinaben Alias Pavli Ganpat Thakore… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gujarat HC (2005)

¶1

1/5

¶2

JUDGMENT

¶3

SCA/9579/2005

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9579 of 2005

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE

¶8

==============================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ?

¶12

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶13

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge} ?

¶14

==============================================================

¶15

PRAVINABEN ALIAS PAVLI GANPAT THAKORE - Petitioner(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VADODARA & 2 - Respondent(s)

¶18

==============================================================

¶19

Appearance :

¶20

MS DR KACHHAVAHfor Petitioner No(s).: 1.

¶21

MR KAMLESH KACHHAVAHfor Petitioner No(s).: 1.

¶22

GOVERNMENT PLEADERfor Respondent No(s).: 1, 2,3.

¶23

==================================================================

¶24

CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE

¶25

Date : 04/08/2005

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

1.By filing this petition, the petitioner detenu
has challenged the detention order dated

¶28

SCA/9579/2005

¶29

2/5

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

26.04.2005 passed by the Police Commissioner,
Vadodara City in exercise of the powers
conferred upon him under sub-section(2) of
Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention Anti-Social
Activities Act, 1985 (“the Act” for short), as,
the “bootlegger” and is required to be detained
under the preventive detention, so that, she may
not continue with such type of illegal
activities.

¶32

2.Along with the detention order, the detenu was
also served with the grounds of detention of the
same date. In the said grounds, there is a
reference to six criminal cases which are filed
under the Bombay Prohibition Act. In the grounds
of detention, the statements of certain
witnesses have been recorded.

¶33

3.Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner detenu has submitted that there is
delay in passing the detention order against the
petitioner. The last offence was registered
against the petitioner on 18.03.2005 and the
detention order came to be passed on 26.04.2005.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
has relied upon the decision of this court in
the case of Elesh Nandubhai Patel V/s
Commissioner of Police, 1997(1) GLH 381, wherein
this Court has observed in paragraph 21 as under
:

¶34

“ In the instant case, the last registered case is of May 20, 1996. The

¶35

SCA/9579/2005

¶36

3/5JUDGMENT

¶37

petitionerdetenuewasgranted
anticipatory bail by the competent
Court. He was also granted regular bail
subsequently. The impugned order of
detention has been passed on November
05, 1996 i.e., after a delay of 5
months and 15 days. It is of course
true that the detaining authority
relied on two incidents of 2nd October
and10thOctober,1996,both
unregistered cases. I have gone through
the allegations. I fail to understand
if the allegations are really of such a
grievous nature, why the cases have not
been registered against the petitioner.
There appears to be some substance in
the contention of the petitioner that
these two unregistered cases have been
referred only with a view to cover up
the gap or to give life to a stale
case. This unexplained delay makes a
ground of detention not proximate,
vitiating the order of detention
itself. If I am to buttress my
findings, I would say the reference may
be made to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Anand Prakash V/s State of
U.P., reported in AIR 1990 SC 516 and
Pradeep Nilkanth V/s S.Ramamurthy
reported in 1993(2) Suppli SCC 61.

¶38

SCA/9579/20054/5

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

It is, therefore, submitted that the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated
on the ground of delay in passing the detention order
after the last incident and, therefore, the impugned
detention order is required to be quashed and set
aside.

¶41

4.On the other hand, Mr.Bhate, learned AGP has tried to support the impugned detention order against the petitioner. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.1.

¶42

5.The impugned order came to be challenged by the
petitioner detenu on various grounds. One of the
grounds is the delay in passing the detention
order. The last criminal case was registered
with Raopura Police Station being III CR No.79
of 2005 against the petitioner on 18.03.2005
under the Bombay Prohibition Act, and,
therefore, delay in passing the detention order
may reflect non-application of mind in arriving
at the subjective satisfaction by the detaining
authority. It is true that the delay by itself
in passing the detention order not fatal to the
detention of the person and has to be looked
into from the facts of each case. The facts of
this case are squarely covered by the decision
of this Court in the matter of Elesh Nandubhai
Patel V/s Commissioner of Police, reported in
1997(1) GLH 381, the detention order, therefore,
cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed

¶43

SCA/9579/2005

¶44

5/5

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

on this ground alone.

¶47

6.In view of what is stated above, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 26.04.2005 is quashed and set aside. The detenu Pravinaben @ Pavli Ganpatbhai Thakore is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if she is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

¶48

( SHARAD D DAVE, J )

¶49

srilatha

Pravinaben Alias Pavli Ganpat Thakore v. Commissioner of Police Vadodara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravinaben Alias Pavli Ganpat Thakore v. Commissioner of Police Vadodara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaileshsinh @ Shelsinh Narpatsinh Rajput Vs the State of Gujrat

Anil Bujwar Jagdish Bujwar Jat Vs State of Guajrat Thr' Secretary

Bhupatbhai Sukhabhai Makwana Vs the State of Gujarat

Vishnubhai Baburao Marathi Thro.Wife - Ashaben v Marathi Vs State of Gujarat

Pinky,W/O.Upendrabhai Narendrabhai Kodekar Chhara Vs State of Guajrat Thr' Secretary

Sanjay Udalsingh Bhadoriya Vs State of Gujarat Thr' Jt.Secretary