Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12024/2008 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12024 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RAMESHBHAI
CHATURBHAI DABHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AR SHAIKH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR DR CHAUHAN, AGP for Respondent(s) : 3.
RULE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date :
13/10/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Heard
the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the
respondents.
2. The
petitioner-detenue has preferred this petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, for appropriate writ, order or direction
for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.3.2008
passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City,
in exercise of power under sub-section(2) of Section (3) of the
Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (?SPASA Act??
for short) whereby the petitioner has been detained as a
?Sbootlegger??. In pursuance of the said impugned order, the
petitioner is detained in Sub-Jail, Himmatnagar.
3. From
the grounds of detention, it appears that six offences being
Prohibition CR Nos.5107 of 2005, 5099 of 2006, 5022 of 2007, 5056 of
2007, 5006 of 2008 and 5021 of 2008 have been registered against the
detenu. Except the first offence which has been registered at GIDC
Vatva Police Station, the rest of the offences have been registered
with Maninagar Police Station, under the provisions of Sections 66B,
65E and 81 under the Bombay Prohibition Act, wherein a quantity of
total quantity of 68 ltrs. of country made liquor were found from
the possession of the detenue. On the basis of registration of these
cases, the detaining authority held that the present detenue was
carrying on activities of selling country made liquor which is
harmful to the health of the public. It is held by the detaining
authority that as the detenue is indulged in illegal activities, it
is required to restrain the detenu from carrying out further illegal
activities, i.e. selling of liquor. The detaining authority has
placed reliance on the above registered offences and statements of
unnamed witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the activities of
the detenue can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be
disturbing the ?Spublic order.?? It is seen from the grounds that a
general statement that has been made by the detaining authority that
consuming liquor is injurious to health. In fact, a perusal of the
order passed by the detaining authority shows that the grounds which
are mentioned in the order are in reference to the situation of ?Slaw
and order?? and not ?Spublic order??. Therefore, on this ground,
the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is
vitiated on account of non-application of mind and the impugned
order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Except
the statements of some anonymous witnesses, there is no material on
record which shows that the petitioner-detenue is carrying on
activities of selling country made liquor which is harmful to the
health of the public. In the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai
Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat [(2001)(1)GLH 393)], having
considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram
Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 740), this Court
held that the cases wherein the detention order passed on the basis
of the statements of the witnesses falls under the maintenance of
?Slaw and order?? and not ?Spublic order??.
5. Applying
the ratio of the above decisions, it is clear that before passing an
order of detention of a detenue, the detaining authority must come
to a definite finding that there is threat to the ?Spublic order??
and it is very clear that the present would not fall within the
category of threat to ?Spublic order??. In that view of the matter,
when the order of detention has been passed by the detaining
authority without having adequate grounds for passing the said order,
cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set
aside.
6. In
the result, this Special Civil
Application is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated
24.3.2008 passed by the detaining authority is hereby quashed and set
aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not
required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct
service is permitted.
Sreeram.
(M.D.Shah,
J.)
Top