Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Divyaniben Ajaykumar Patel, wife of the detenu Ajay Bhula Patel @ Ajay Ghodo, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court (Bench at Goa) challenging the preventive detention order dated 29th November 2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Daman (Respondent No.2) under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The order directed the detention of the detenu at Sub-Jail, Daman, classifying him as a 'Dangerous Person' under Section 2(c) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the detention order was illegal and suffered from non-application of mind, as the detaining authority failed to supply relevant documents, including the bail order and statements of witnesses, thereby violating the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The respondents, represented by the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu and others, filed an affidavit dated 16th January 2024 by Mr. Saurabh Mishra, District Magistrate, Daman, defending the order. The Court, after hearing arguments from Mr. Manoj Badgujar for the petitioner, Mr. Ayush Kedia for the respondents, and Mr. J.P. Yagnik for the State, and perusing the entire record, found that the detaining authority had not supplied the bail order and other relevant documents to the detenu, which were essential for making an effective representation. The Court held that this failure amounted to a violation of the procedural safeguards under Article 22(5) and rendered the detention order invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the detention order and directed the immediate release of the detenu, unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Dangerous Person - Section 3(2) and Section 2(c) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 - Procedural Safeguards - The detenu was preventively detained under the Act as a 'Dangerous Person'. The Court examined whether the detention order suffered from non-application of mind and violation of procedural safeguards, specifically the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Held that the failure to supply relevant documents, including the bail order and statements of witnesses, vitiated the detention order. (Paras 1-7) B) Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention - Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India - Right to Make Representation - The detaining authority must supply all documents and materials relied upon to enable the detenu to make an effective representation. Non-supply of such documents renders the detention order invalid. (Paras 5-7) C) Administrative Law - Non-Application of Mind - Detention Order - The detaining authority must apply its mind to all relevant facts and circumstances. Failure to consider the detenu's pending bail application and the fact that he was already in custody at the time of the detention order indicates non-application of mind. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the preventive detention order dated 29th November 2023 passed under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, classifying the detenu as a 'Dangerous Person' under Section 2(c), is valid and sustainable in law, particularly in light of the alleged non-supply of relevant documents and non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Final Decision
The Court quashed and set aside the detention order dated 29th November 2023 and directed the immediate release of the detenu, unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- Dangerous person
- Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985
- Section 3(2)
- Section 2(c)
- Article 226
- Article 22(5)
- Right to make representation
- Non-supply of documents
- Procedural safeguard
- Non-application of mind
