Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 91 (GUJ)

GOVIND CHANGUMAL SINDHI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

1989-06-26

A.P.RAVANI, J.U.MEHTA

body1989
A. P. RAVANI, J. U. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been detained pursuant to order of detention dated 10/10/1988 passed by the detaining authority (Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City) under the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short pasa ). The order was executed on the same day, i. e. 10/10/1988 and since then the petitioner is in detention. ( 2 ) IT is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner is a bootlegger as defined under the provisions of PASA and that he was involved in four criminal cases registered under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, the details of which are mentioned in the grounds of detention. One of the cases has been proved against the petitioner while two of them were under investigation and one was pending in court. It is also alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner was storing and selling country liquor in Chamanpura Area of Ahmedabad City and for conducting this activity he was even harassing the innocent citizens. On the basis of the material placed before the detaining authority, he was satisfied the it was necessary to pass the order of detention under the provisions of Section 3 (2) of PASA so as to prevent the petitioner from indulging in any activity adversely affecting the maintenance of public order. Hence the order of detention. ( 3 ) IN the facts of the case, it is not necessary to go into the details of various grounds of challenge made against the order of detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-detenu does not know how to read and write Gujarati language though he is residing in Gujarati for lst about 30 years. He further submitted that the petitioner knows Sindhi language and since he has studied upto 7th standard in English Medium he knows English language also. To this effect he has filed an affidavit dated 22/06/1989. It is an admitted position that the grounds of detention and the documents on which the reliance was placed by the detaining authority have not been supplied to the petitioner detenu in the script known and understood by him. The grounds of detention have been suplied to the petitioner in only Gujarati language. It is an admitted position that the grounds of detention and the documents on which the reliance was placed by the detaining authority have not been supplied to the petitioner detenu in the script known and understood by him. The grounds of detention have been suplied to the petitioner in only Gujarati language. The statements made in the affidavit by the petitioner have not been controverted by the other side. On the contrary it is conceded that as per the information gathered by the respondent authorities, the petitioner does not know how to read and write Gujarati language. ( 4 ) AS per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Hadibandhu Das v. Distt. Magistrate, Cuttack, reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court, page 43 and in the case of Tsering Dolkar v. Administrator, U. T. Delhi reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court, page 1192, the detenu has to be informed about the grounds of detention in a language which he understands. In the case of Ibrahim Ahmad v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court, page 1500, the Supreme Court in terms held that the grounds and material on which the detaining authority relies while arriving at the subjective satisfaction for passing the order of detention must be furnished to the detenu in a script or language which he understands. In the instant case, the grounds of detention and the statements relied upon by the detaining authority have not been supplied to the petitioner-detenu in Sindhi language or in English language. which he knows and understands. This has resulted into non-compliance with the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India read with Section 9 (1) of PASA. ( 5 ) IT would certainly be a different case if a person is totally illiterate. In such cases explanation of the grounds and material relied upon by the detaining authority in respect of the order of detention in the language which the detenu understands would be certainly sufficient compliance with the constitutional provisions and the relevant provisions of PASA. But in cases where the detenu is in a position to read and write a particular language, then in such cases, he is required to be furnished the grounds and other material relied upon by the detaining in the language which he knows and understands. But in cases where the detenu is in a position to read and write a particular language, then in such cases, he is required to be furnished the grounds and other material relied upon by the detaining in the language which he knows and understands. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that this decision may create difficulty in the way of the authorities whenever a person to be detained is totally illiterate cannot be accepted. In this view of the matter the continued detention of the petitioner cannot be upheld. ( 6 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The continued detention of the petitioner is held to be illegal and void. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule made absolute accordingly. (RPV) Petition allowed. .