Mansingh Ramswarup Tomar Vs. State of Gujarat and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 4. in paras 7 and 8 of the affidavit-in-reply the detaining authority has stated that the petitioner has studied upto 4th standard and he is in a position to know hindi as well as gujarati language and that the petitioner was also explained the contents of the order of detention, committal order as well as the grounds of detention in hindi language and he has also put his signature in gujarati below the detention order, committal order and grounds of detention. further it appears from the endorsement that the police inspector who served the said orders and other documents on the petitioner has clearly stated to the effect that the petitioner has studied upto 4th standard in hindi and that the substance of the orders was explained to him in hindi and in token thereof he has put his signature. under the circumstances the continued detention of the petitioner is bad and illegal.b.s. kapadia, j.1. the petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order of detention passed against him by the commissioner of police, ahmedabad city, on 6-4-1988 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the gujarat prevention of anti-social activities act, 1985. the petitioner was served with the order as also grounds of detention on the same day.2. on perusal of the grounds of detention it appears that there were three cases filed against the petitioner under the provisions of the bombay prohibition act. the statements of four witnesses were also recorded against him. the detaining authority on considering the same as also other alternative less drastic remedies came to the conclusion that it is necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from disturbing to maintenance of public order.3. several grounds have been raised in the petition but mr. b.j. shethna, the learned advocate for the petitioner has pressed before us only one ground which he has raised in grounds (b) and (f) of the petition. he submits that the petitioner-detenu does not know gujarati and english languages and therefore, he was unable to make any representation and that in fact be has not made any representation to any of the authorities. he has further submitted that the petitioner has been served with the detention order in english and the grounds of detention and other documents containing basic material, in gujarati language.4. in paras 7 and 8 of the affidavit-in-reply the detaining authority has stated that the petitioner has studied upto 4th standard and he is in a position to know hindi as well as gujarati language and that the petitioner was also explained the contents of the order of detention, committal order as well as the grounds of detention in hindi language and he has also put his signature in gujarati below the detention order, committal order and grounds of detention.5. mr. j.u. mehta, learned addl. p.p. has placed in our hands the original file and on perusal of the same it appears that there is an endorsement is respect of supplying the copies of the said orders and other documents to the petitioner. it appears from the signature of the petitioner ramsingh ramswarup tomar that it is in hindi language and not in gujarati language. further it appears from the endorsement that the police inspector who served the said orders and other documents on the petitioner has clearly stated to the effect that the petitioner has studied upto 4th standard in hindi and that the substance of the orders was explained to him in hindi and in token thereof he has put his signature.6. it is settled law that when the documents containing basic materials relied on by the detaining authority are to be supplied to the detenu they should be supplied in the language known to the detenu. mere reading over or orally explaining the same would not serve the purpose. admittedly in the present case the documents which are served on the petitioner are in gujarati language and the petitioner does not know gujarati language. this fact is clear from the endorsement made by the police inspector who has served the said orders and other documents on the petitioner-detenu. in that view of the matter the petitioner was not served with the documents in the language known to him and that has affected his right of making adequate and effective representation.7. therefore, his right under article 22(5) of the constitution of india is infracted. under the circumstances the continued detention of the petitioner is bad and illegal.in view of the aforesaid conclusion it is not necessary to hear the learned advocate for the petitioner, on other points.in result the continued detention of the petitioner-detenu is held to be illegal. the petitioner-detenu mansingh ramswarup tomar is ordered to be released forthwith, if no more required in any other case. rule is made absolute accordingly.