Vala Boghabhai Satabhai of Patla vs United State of Saurashtra

This is an application by one Vala Boghabhai Satabhai against his order of detention by the District Magistrate of Gohilwad under the Public

Safety Measures Ordinance. The detenu was arrested on 22nd September 1919 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and within a fortnight

thereafter his detention was continued by the District Magistrate. On 9th November 1919 he applied for a copy of the grounds of his detention and

on 10th January 1950 the District Magistrate purports to have addressed a letter to him mentioning the grounds under which he was detained. It is

very curious that this letter by the District Magistrate was written two months after the detenu''s application, Neither this Court nor the Government

pleader was in possession of the grounds when the matter was heard by this Court last week. He was adjourned for the purposes of the profession

of the grounds and we have now got the grounds before us which are mentioned in the District Magistrate''s letter of the 10th January. On the

merits we think that there is nothing to show that the statement in the order that the District Magistrate was satisfied that the detenu gave a shelter

and was sheltering the gang of Visa Manjaria is incorrect or that it is inserted without making proper enquiries. As we have repeatedly laid down

unless there is any internal evidence to show that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind to the question, this Court would have no power

to interfere. If it finds that the District Magistrate was satisfied then the order must stand. There is nothing before us to prove that the District

Magistrate had not applied his mind. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the order but we must make mention of one thing and we

hope that the authorities concerned will take a serious note of that.

In this case the application was made by the detenu on 9th November 1949. The District Magistrate instead of sending him a reply as

expeditiously as possible has sent a letter through the Home Department 2 months thereafter, i.e., on 10th January 1950. There is no proper

explanation before us for the reason of this delay. The learned Government Pleader says that the delay is due to the fact that the District Magistrate

was in correspondence with the Government for considering the release of the detenu. In our opinion even if he was doing that, that is no reason at

all why once the District Magistrate receives an application from the detenu for furnishing grounds he should not send those grounds to him even

through the Home Department as soon as possible. If the detenu wants to make an application to this Court then it is necessary that the grounds of

detention must be before this Court. The application would not ordinarily be heard by this Court till the grounds are received. This procedure is

entirely unsatisfactory and the right of a detenu to approach the High Court and to take a decision of the High Court as soon as possible should not

be curtailed in any way by the manner in which this matter has been protracted for such a long time. We hope that the authorities will stop this

practice and furnish to the detenu with the grounds of detention as expeditiously as possible after his application. We might state further that if a

detenu makes any application u/s 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, to this Court without his being supplied the grounds, the grounds must be sent

to this Court as soon as the application is admitted and the Government is informed accordingly. If at the time of the final hearing of such an

application the grounds are not still sent to the High Court, this Court will have to seriously consider whether the application should be allowed on

the ground that no grounds of detention are forthcoming.

The Registrar should call for a report from the District Magistrate for an explanation of the delay of two months in forwarding the detenu''s

application to the Government.