Gujarat High Court High Court

Sanjay vs State on 6 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Sanjay vs State on 6 April, 2011
Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/10501/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10501 of 2010
 

 
=========================================================


 

SANJAY
MULSHANKARBHAI PUROHIT - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
HR PRAJAPATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR KL PANDYA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 24/03/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

In
this matter, RULE was issued and the respondent has
already filed an Affidavit.

A
contention is raised by learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.D. Nanavaty
appearing for the petitioner that no detention order could have been
passed terming the petitioner as a ‘Immoral Traffic Offender’ as
defined under Section 2(g) of the PASA Act since the petitioner is
not a person who has habitually committed or abetted the offences
under Suppression of Immoral
Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. In support of
the above contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.M.D. Kiran Pasha Vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1990
(1) SCC 328 as well as the other decisions of the Apex Court
as well as this Court including the circumstances in which the
powers can be exercised by this Court at pre-execution of the order
of detention. The affidavit filed by the respondent does not deal
with the specific contention raised by the petitioner.

In
view of the above, I am inclined to grant stay of execution of the
order at this stage, keeping it open for the respondent to file an
affidavit with regard to the contention as raised above.

Sd/-

(Anant
S. Dave, J.)

Caroline

   

Top