TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g under the jurisdiction of Athwa Lines Police Station, Surat City and directed the detenu to be detained in Sabarmati Central Prison, Ahmedabad under the conditions specified in the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Order, 1985. In pursuance of the impugned order the detenu has been detained in the aforesaid prison. The second respondent, the State of Gujarat, approved the impugned order on 26.10.1988 and confirmed the same on 13.12 . 1988. The detenu submitted his representation dated 15.12. 1988 which was received by the 1st respondent on 19.12. 1988 on which date itself the same was rejected. The copy of the representation sent to the second respondent was rejected on 21.12.1988. It is stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was illegally keeping in possession the country liquor and openly selling the same at the comer of Nanpura, Machhiwa d, Masjid Wali Gali, Bhandariwad and conducting a den (Adda) and that he had been arrested in 1988 for offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act in respect of which number of cases were registered which cases are still pending trial as disclosed in Annexure I. It is further stated that the detenu had engaged 10 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich reads thus: You are associated with bootlegging activity for long time, therefore, under order number dated 2.1.87 you were ordered to be detained under PASA and were kept in Baroda Central Jail. But you filed a petition against this order of detention in the High Court by Special Criminal Misc. Application No. 46/1987, After this petition was heard on 3.8.87, the Hon ble High Court quashed the detention order and released you from detention. The proceedings taken against you have had no effect on you and after you were released from the detention, you have continued your activity. The detenu, presumably based on the above statement, h as stated in his writ petition that the present order of detention is clamped upon him since the earlier order passed on 2.1. 1987 had been quashed and set aside. The detaining authority in attempting to reply to the allegations made in paragraph no. 6 of the Writ Petition, wherein it is averred The petitioner states that in some of the cases, the petitioner is acquitted and in none of the cases the petitioner is convicted till today , has made the following statement in paragraph 9 of his counter: It is submitted that the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll India Reporter case (Hadibandhu Das case) the inference is very compulsive that fresh facts must be found for new orders otherwise once the old detention comes to an end either by the expiry of the period of detention or by the cancellation of the order of detention, a fresh detention cannot be ordered. In HarJas Dev Singh v. State of Punjab Ors., [1974] 1 SCR 281, this Court while examining a similar question with regard to validity of second detention order passed under Section 14(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security A ct (Act 26 of 1971) on identical grounds of the earlier order expressed its view: In these circumstances after the date on which the order cease to be in force, unless fresh facts have arisen on t he basis of which the Central Government or State Government or an Officer, as the case may be, was satisfied that such an order should be made, the subsequent detention on the very same grounds would be invalid. The learned counsel also cited for the same principle of law, the decision in Chotka Hembram v. State of West Bengal Ors., [1974] 3 SCC 401. Those decisions mentioned albeit are cases where inte first detention order ceased to be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s continuing his bootlegging activities. But what the detaining authority says clearly in paragraph 9 of his affidavit in reply is that he took into consideration the previous grounds of detention also for his conclusion that the detenu was engaged in bootlegging activities since long . In other words the detaining authority has taken in to consideration the earlier grounds of detention which grounds had been nullified by the High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 46 of 1987 by issuing a prerogative writ of habeas corpus. Under Section 15 of the Act, the expiry or revocation of an earlier detention order is not a bar for making a subsequent detention 59 order under Section 3 against the same person. The proviso annexed to that Section states that in a case where no fresh facts have arisen after expiry or revocation of an earlier order made against such person the maximum period for which such person may be detained in pursuance of the subsequent detention order shall in no case extend beyond the period of 12 months from the date of detention under the earlier order. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh v. B.K. Jha and Another, [1987] 2 SCC 22 = 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
