Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/5666/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5666 of 2011
=========================================================
VIJAYBHAI
REVABHAI CHAUHAN THROUGH COUSIN BROTHER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
KRISHNA U MISHRA for
Petitioner
Ms.
Manisha L. Shah AGP for
Respondents:
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 25/07/2011 ORAL ORDER
This
petition is directed against the order of detention dated 7.4.2011
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.
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 detenu 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 vs. Commissioner of police, AIR 1989 Supreme Court
491 and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.K. Mukhopadhaya C.J. &
J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in
Letters Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application
No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs. Commissioner
of Police) which would
squarely help the detenue.
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.
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.K. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in
Letters Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application
No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs. 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.
In
the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated
7.4.2011 passed by the respondent
No.2 is quashed and set aside. The
detenue, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required
in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
[swamy]
Top