Mukeshbhai Versibhai Rabari vs State of Gujarat and Others

A.G. Uraizee, J.—We have heard Mr. B.M. Mangukiya with Ms. Bela A. Prajapati, learned advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Harshil Shukla, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents. ADMIT. Mr Harsheel Shukla, learned Assistant Government Pleader accepts and waives service of notice of admission. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today itself.

The appellant is detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''the PASA'') as a ''dangerous person'' as defined u/s 2(c) of the PASA. He has challenged his detention by filing Special Civil Application No. 15975 of 2013, which is still pending. The petitioner filed Civil Application No. 11358 of 2013 for being enlarged on bail during the pendency of his writ petition. This Civil Application came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25th October 2013. The petitioner being aggrieved, preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1369 of 2013. The Division Bench by its order dated 25th November 2013 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1369 of 2013 requested the learned Single Judge to decide the main petition at the earliest subject to his Lordship''s convenience. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 25th November 2013, the appellant preferred Civil Application (For Orders) No. 12639 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 15975 of 2013 and made the following prayers before the learned Single Judge:-

On the premises of the above facts and circumstances, the applicant humbly prays before Yours Lordships that-

(A) Be pleased to admit this application,

(B) Be pleased to direct the respondents that the applicant be enlarged temporarily during pendency of the above numbered petition on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit;

Or In the Alternative

(C) Be pleased to fix the early hearing of the aforesaid petition being Special Civil Application No. 15975/13 as directed by the Division Bench of this Hon''ble Court vide order dated 25.11.2013 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1369/13;

The learned Single Judge has not acceded to the prayer of the appellant to take up the hearing of the main writ petition on priority basis by holding as under:

While disposing of said LPA No. 1369 of 2013, the Division Bench has requested the learned Single Judge to decide the main writ petition at the earliest subject to conveniency as the writ petition is in the nature of Habeas Corpus. It needs to be noted here that it is consistent practice of the High Court that matters filed under the provisions of the PASA is taken up by the Court in seriatim i.e. as per actual date of detention. The date of present applicant''s detention is 27.9.2013. Presently, the Court is hearing detention matters of the detenue, which are detained in or around 20th July, 2013. If any matter is taken up out of the turn ignoring the actual date of detention on any grounds, it would result into heartburning amongst other detenue, who are waiting for their turn. Because of the practice to take the matter strictly in accordance with the actual date of detention is more convenient to the Court as there would not be any ill feeling either amongst the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners or amongst the detenue. Therefore, this Court do not find it convenient to give any priority to any of the matters out of the turn. Therefore, the applicant''s prayer to fix up early hearing is rejected.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the above order dated 6th December 2013 of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Application (For Orders) No. 12639 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 15975 of 2013.

4 The appellant is detained under the provisions of the PASA as a ''dangerous person'' as defined u/s 2(c) of the PASA on the basis of two FIRs registered against him. After perusing the record, this Division Bench opined that whether the appellant can be declared and treated as a dangerous person is the question which can be decided by the learned Single Judge on merits. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case against the appellant without entering into the merits of the case this Division Bench requested the learned Single Judge to decide the main writ petition on priority basis at the earliest subject to his Lordship''s convenience. However, instead of giving priority as requested by this Division Bench, the learned Single Judge has refused to hear the main writ petition on the ground that as per the consistent practice of the High Court, the matters filed under the provisions of the PASA Act are taken up by the Court in seriatim i.e. actual date of detention. If any matter is taken up out of turn ignoring the actual date of detention on any grounds, it would result into heartburning amongst other detenue, who are waiting for their turn. This line of reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge for not giving priority to the main writ petition filed by the appellant is not in consonance with the judicial discipline and propriety. The reading of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge creates an impression as if this Division Bench was not aware as to in what manner the petitions preferred under the PASA Act are being taken up and dealt with in this Court. This Court is fully conscious of the practice of this Court in dealing with the detention matters. Still however, looking to the peculiar facts of the case against the present appellant, this Division Bench had requested the learned Single Judge to decide the main writ petition of the appellant on priority basis at the earliest. This Division Bench, while considering the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.10.2013 whereby the prayer of the appellant to release him on temporary bail was rejected, was sitting in appellate forum. This Court, with a view to maintain judicial decorum, requested the learned Single Judge to decide the main writ petition on merits subject to his Lordship''s convenience. As per the settled canons of judicial discipline, even a request made by the appellate forum is a command, which cannot be ignored lightly.

Under the circumstances, we are left with no other option but to refer the matter to the learned Single Judge once again with a direction to decide the main writ petition within one week of receipt of this order.

In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, Civil Application No. 13234 of 2013 does not survive, and the same stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.