Gujarat High Court
Sachin @ Saslo Ambubhai Thakor ... vs State Of Gujarat on 13 May, 2021
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/SCA/7254/2021 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7254 of 2021
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16993 of 2020
=========== ==== == == == == == === == == == == == == == == == == == = == ==
===
SACHIN @ SASLO AMBUBHAI THAKOR THROUGH ALPABEN SACHINBHAI
THAKOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=========== ==== == == == == == === == == == == == == == == == == == = == ==
===
Appearance:
MR MAULIN G PANDYA(3999) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========== ==== == == == == == === == == == == == == == == == == == = == ==
===
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 13/05/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Maulin G. Pandya, learned advocate
for the petitioner and Mr. Rohan Shah,
learned AGP for the respondent No.1. On
5.5.2021, the Court passed the following
order:
"1. Heard Mr.Maulin Pandya learned
advocate for the petitioner.
2. It appears that what is under challenge
is order of detention dated 06.04.2021
passed by the District Magistrate, Kheda.
What needs to be noted is that in Special
Civil Application No.16993 of 2020, this
Court on 26.03.2021 passed the following
order:
"1. This petition was filed apprehending
C/SCA/7254/2021 ORDER
detention under PASA.
2. In response to the notice of this
Court, learned Assistant Government
Pleader on instructions of the
sponsoring Authority has stated that, on
the basis of the FIR(s) in question,
there is proposal to detain the
petitioner under PASA.
3. The following details, on behalf of
the detaining Authority, may be put to
the notice of the Court on the next date
of hearing. (i) The date of proposal to
detain the petitioner under PASA, if
any, as received by the detaining
Authority; (ii) The prima facie
satisfaction of the detaining Authority,
with regard to the said proposal.
4. List on 08.04.2021."
3. The matter was to be listed on
08.04.2021. The matter was not listed on
the adjourned date as a result of the
restricted hearing. Even before the
listing date, the Court, as is apparent
from the order, has asked the respondent
to satisfy the Court on the prima facie
satisfaction with regards to the proposal
of the detention. Without that
satisfaction being placed before the
Court, the respondent no.2 passed an order
of detention on 05.04.2021.
4. Primafacie, this action of the
respondent no.2 is contemptuous and is
overreaching the process of the Court. The
respondent no.2 is directed to show cause
on the returnable date i.e. 12.05.2021 as
to why the authority proceeded to pass an
order of detention without satisfying the
Court as required in the order dated
26.03.2021.
5. Registry to place this matter along
C/SCA/7254/2021 ORDER
with Special Civil Application No.16993 of
2020.
6. Learned AGP to seek instructions and
file appropriate response explaining the
conduct of the respondent no.2. The
respondent no.2 himself shall file an
affidavit as to why he proceeded to pass
an order without waiting for satisfaction
of the Court in accordance with the order
dated 26.03.2021.
7. A copy of this order shall be provided
to Mr.Meet Thakkar learned AGP for onward
communication.
8. Stand over to 12.05.2021.
9. In view of the order passed in this main
Special Civil Application, the Civil
Application No.1 of 2021 for fixing date
will not survive and hence the same is
disposed of."
2. Pursuant to the order dated 5.5.2021 Shri
I. K. Patel, District Magistrate has filed
affidavitinreply dated 10.5.2021. Mr. Rohan
Shah, learned AGP on instructions states that
the deponent is not pressing paragraphs 2 to
5 of the affidavitinreply. The explanation
is rendered and apology is tendered by the
deponent in paragraphs 6 to 10. The
paragraphs 6 to 10 of the affidavitinreply
are as under:
"6. It is stated that this Hon'ble Court
vide order dated 05.05.2021 has sought an
explanation about the noncompliance of
C/SCA/7254/2021 ORDER
the order passed in Special Civil
Application No.16993 2020 vide order dated
26.03.2021.
7. It is stated that the petitioner has on
a earlier occasion has approached this
Hon'ble Court vide Special Civil
Application no. 16993 of 2020 apprehending
the detention wherein this Hon'ble Court
on 26.03.2021 has asked the detaining
authority to produce the date of the
proposal, to detain the petitioner under
PASA and the prima facie satisfaction of
the detaining authority with regard to the
said proposal. The said petition was
listed on 08.04.2021, however, the said
could not be proceeded further due to on
going pandemic situation and hence the
said matter went in cut off.
8. It is stated that the detaining
authority has received the proposal of the
detention on 03.04.2021 wherein
considering the nature of the offence and
the huge quantity of liquor the detention
order dated 05.04.2021 came to be passed,
which is under challenge. is stated that
the respondent authority is duty bound to
obey each and every order passed by this
Hon'ble Court, however, the earlier order
passed by this Hon'ble Court on 26.03.2021
was not received by the respondent
authority and the respondent authority was
totally unaware about the said order
passed by this Hon'ble Court hence it was
even not mentioned in the detention order
which came to be passed on 05.04.2021.
10 . It is stated that the deponent tender
unconditional apology about noncompliance
of the earlier order passed on 2 6 . 03 .
2021 in Special Civil Application no.
16993 of 2020 however, the deponent has
C/SCA/7254/2021 ORDER
passed the detention order looking to the
serious nature of offence and looking to
the facts that petitioner herein is a
habitual offender who came to be earlier
detained in the year 2018. The deponent
had exercise his jurisdiction purely in a
bonafide manner and has no intention to
disregard the order passed by this Hon'ble
Court."
3. Mr. Maulin G. Pandya, learned advocate for
the petitioner has stated that there is no
breach of public order as stated in the
affidavitinreply filed by the competent
authority. It is further stated that the
petitioner has been acquitted by the
authority in the following FIRs :
Sr.No. FIR No. Police Station Status
1 Prohi.65/2017 Vaso Quashed vide
Police Station order dated
21.3.2018
passed in
CR.MA
No.5944/2018
2 Prohi.55/2017 Matar This Hon'ble
Police Station vide order
dated
10.4.2018
passed in
CR.MA
No.6384/2018
has stayed
further
proceeding of
criminal
case.
3 Prohi.157/2016 Mahudha Acquitted by
Police Station Ld.JMFC,
Mahudha vide
order dated
10.8.2017
C/SCA/7254/2021 ORDER
passed in
Criminal Case
No.579/2016.
4 Prohi.595/2015 Chaklasi Acquitted by
Police Station Ld.JMFC,
Kheda vide
order dated
07.06.2017
passed in
Criminal Case
No.4317/2016.
The respondent authority has relied on FIR
being Prohi.157 of 2016 registered with
Mahudha Police Station and Prohi.595 of 2015
registered with Chaklasi Police Station
wherein after conclusion of trial the
petitioner has been acquitted from all the
offences by judgment and order dated
10.8.2017 and 07.06.2017 respectively.
4. In view of above submission made by the
learned advocate for the petitioner, RULE.
Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule
on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.
5. Office is directed to list the matter
for final hearing in seriatim according to
the actual date of detention.
6. In the meantime, let there be stay in terms
of paragraph No.14(C) of the petition. The
petitioner be released forthwith on receipt
C/SCA/7254/2021 ORDER
of copy of this order till final out come of
this petition. Direct service is permitted.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
K.K. SAIYED
