Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/4434/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4434 of
2011
=========================================================
DHANRAJ
@ DHANNA VAGHUMAL MURJANI, THROUGH WIFE LATABEN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR ARVIND K THAKUR for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS VL BHATT AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,2,3
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 11/05/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition is directed against the order of detention dated 17.2.2011
passed by respondent No. 2, in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 3(1)/3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities
Act, 1985 (in short ‘the Act’) by detaining the detenue as a
“bootlegger” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act.
2. Learned
advocate for the detenue submits that registration of FIR/s itself
cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and therefore
the public order. He further submits that, except FIR/s registered
under the Bombay Prohibition Act, there was no other material before
the detaining authority whereby it could be inferred reasonably that
the detenue is a ‘bootlegger’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of
the Act and required to be detained as the detenue’s activities are
prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In
support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenue has
placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush
Kantilal Mehta V/s. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1989 Supreme Court
491 and the recent judgment
dated 28.3.2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram:
S.J.Mukhopadhaya, C.J. & J.B.Pardiwala, J.] in Letters
Patent Appeal No.2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of
2010 (Aartiben V/s. Commissioner of Police) which
would squarely help the
detenue.
3. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of FIR/s
would go to show that the detenue had, in fact, indulged into such
activities, which can be said to be disturbing the public health and
public order and in view of sufficient material before the detaining
authority to pass the order of detention, no interference is called
for by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
4. Having
heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of
the case, I am of the view that FIR/s registered under the Bombay
Prohibition Act alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to
arrive at subjective satisfaction to the effect that the activities,
as alleged, are prejudicial to the public order or lead to
disturbance of public order. There has to be nexus and link for such
activities with disturbance of the public order. On careful perusal
of the material available on record and the ratio laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra) and the
recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court [Coram: S.J.Mukhopadhaya, C.J. & J.B.Pardiwala, J.)] in
Letters Patent Appeal No.2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application
No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben V/s. Commissioner of Police),
I am of the view that the activities of the detenue cannot be said to
be in any manner prejudicial to the public order and therefore, the
order of detention passed by the detaining authority cannot be
sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. In
the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated
17.2.2011 passed by the respondent No.2, is quashed and set aside.
The detenue, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not
required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(Anant
S.Dave, J.)
(ashish)
Top