1993 (5) TMI 201 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of delegation of detention powers under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA).
2. Definition and applicability of "property grabber" under PASA.
3. Retrospective application of PASA.
4. Legality of the detention orders based on procedural compliance with PASA and constitutional mandates.
5. Timeliness and consideration of the detenue's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Legality of Delegation of Detention Powers:
The appellants challenged the delegation of detention powers under Section 3(2) of PASA, arguing that it constituted a blanket delegation without the necessary satisfaction of the State Government, potentially leading to abuse by District Magistrates or Commissioners of Police. The court upheld the delegation, stating that PASA is a valid law made under the concurrent list, designed to address anti-social activities prejudicial to public order. The court emphasized that the delegation was necessary for swift action by local authorities to maintain public order and was not illegal or invalid.

2. Definition and Applicability of "Property Grabber":
The court examined the definition of "property grabber" under Section 2(h) of PASA, which includes individuals who illegally take possession of government or private lands, construct unauthorized structures, or engage in related activities. The court found that the appellants' actions of selling government land through fraudulent means, despite a status quo order, constituted property grabbing. The court noted that such activities adversely affected public order, justifying the detention under PASA.

3. Retrospective Application of PASA:
The appellants contended that PASA could not be applied retrospectively to actions taken before its enactment. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that PASA addresses ongoing anti-social activities affecting public order. The court emphasized that the appellants' continued illegal activities and disregard for legal orders justified the application of PASA, irrespective of when the initial acts occurred.

4. Legality of the Detention Orders:
The court scrutinized the procedural compliance with PASA, particularly the requirement for the State Government's approval of detention orders within 12 days. The court found no evidence that the State Government approved the detention orders within the mandated period, rendering the orders invalid. The court highlighted that the failure to comply with this procedural requirement resulted in the lapse of the detention orders after 12 days.

5. Timeliness and Consideration of the Detenue's Representation:
The appellants argued that their representations against the detention orders were not considered promptly, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court agreed, noting that the State Government delayed considering the representations until after receiving the Advisory Board's opinion, which was contrary to established legal principles. The court reiterated that the government must independently and promptly consider detenue representations, irrespective of the Advisory Board's proceedings. The delay and lack of timely consideration constituted a breach of constitutional rights, rendering the detention orders illegal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found procedural lapses in the execution of detention orders under PASA and a violation of constitutional rights due to delayed consideration of representations. Consequently, the court declared the detention orders illegal and directed the release of the detenues, except for the absconding Prashant Manubhai Vora.