Posted On by &filed under Gujarat High Court, High Court.


Gujarat High Court
================================================================ vs Commissioner Of Police & 2 on 10 December, 2014
        C/SCA/13488/2014                                           JUDGMENT



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13488 of 2014

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
================================================================

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 ?

================================================================
          KANAIYA LAL MULJIBHAI BHIMJI PATEL....Petitioner(s)
                             Versus
           COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR CHETAN B RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KKASHYAP PUJARA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================

         CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

                                Date : 10/12/2014


                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1  This   petition   is   directed   against   the   order   of   detention   dated 

Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/13488/2014 JUDGMENT

06.09.2014   passed   by  respondent   No.1­The   Commissioner   of   Police, 
Ahmedabad City, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of 
the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short the 
PASA Act) by detaining the detenue as defined under Section 2(g) of the 
Act as immoral traffic offender. Along with the order of detention, the 
detenue is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of 
detention, there is a reference to one criminal case registered against the 
detenue before the Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, being CR No.II­
3364/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 9 of the 
Immoral   Traffic   (Prevention)   Act.   The   case   is   registered   under   the 
provisions of the Prevention Of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956.

2  Learned Advocate Mr. C.B. Raval, for the detenue submits that, 
due to oversight, wrong facts of another case are wrongly crept in the 
petition and requested to the Court to ignore the said facts to consider 
the oral submission made before the Court in the interest of justice as 
the detenue is in custody from the date of his arrest in connection with 
the present offence. Learned Advocate further regrets for the incorrect 
facts   mentioned   in   the   petition   and   the   inconvenience   caused   to   the 
Court. He further submits that the order of detention impugned in this 
petition   deserves   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside   on   the   ground   that 
registration   of   solitary   complaint   for   the   offence   punishable   under 
Sections 4, 5, 6, and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 by 
itself   cannot   bring   the   case   of   the   detenue   within   the   purview   of 
definition   under   Section   2(g)   of   the   Act.   Learned   Advocate   for   the 
detenue   further   submitted   that   illegal   activity   carried   out   as   alleged 
cannot have any nexus or bearing with maintenance of public order and 
at the most it can be said to be breach of law and order. It is further 
submitted that, except, statements of witnesses, registration of FIR and 
panchnama, no other relevant or cogent material is available on record 

Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/13488/2014 JUDGMENT

connecting the alleged anti­social activities of the detenue with breach of 
public order. 

3  Mr. C.B. Raval, learned Advocate for the detenue further submits 
that it is not possible to hold in the facts of the present case that the 
activities of the detenue with reference to the criminal case had affected 
even tempo of public life of the people at large or that on the basis of the 
criminal   case,   the   detenue   had   put   the   entire   social   apparatus   in 
disorder,   making   it   difficult   for   whole   system   to   exist   as   a   system 
governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

4  Mr.   Kkashyap   Puara,   learned   AGP   for   the   respondent   State 
supported  the  detention  order  passed  by  the  authority  and submitted 
that   sufficient   material   and   evidence   was   found   during   the   course   of 
investigation which was also supplied to the detenue itself indicate that 
the   detenue   is   in   habit   of   indulging   into   activities   as   defined   under 
Section   2(g)   of   the   Act   and   considering   the   facts   of   the   case,   the 
detaining  authority  has rightly  passed the  order  of detention  and the 
detention   order   deserves   to   be   upheld   by   this   Court.   However,   no 
affidavit­in­reply is filed on behalf of any of the respondents. 

5  Having heard the submissions of the parties and considering the 
request made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner with regard to 
the   wrong   facts   mentioned   in   the   petition   and   also   consider   the 
circumstances   of   the   case,   it   appears   that,   the   subjective   satisfaction 
arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and 
in   accordance   with   law   inasmuch   as   the   offences   alleged   in   the   FIR, 
cannot have any bearing on the public order since the law of the land i.e. 
the Act, 1956 and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take 
care   of   the   situation   and   that   the   allegations   as   have   been   levelled 

Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/13488/2014 JUDGMENT

against the detenue, cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of 
bringing the detenue within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and 
unless and until the material is there to make out a case that the person 
concerned has become a threat and a menace to the  society so as to 
disturb   the   whole   tempo   of   the   society   and   that   the   whole   social 
apparatus   is   in   peril   disturbing   public   order   at   the   instance   of   such 
person,   it   cannot   be   said   that,   the   detenue   is   a   person   within   the 
meaning of Section 2(g) of the Act. Except general statements, there is 
no material on record which shows that the detenue is acting in such a 
manner which is dangerous to the public order.

6  In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this petition because 
simplicitor registration of FIR by itself cannot have any nexus with the 
breach   of   maintenance   of   public   order   and   the   authority   can   have 
recourse under the Act, 1956 and no other relevant or cogent material 
exists for invoking powers under Section 3(1) of 3(2) of the Act. That 
the State Government has not filed affidavit­in­reply to this petition.

7  In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of 
detention   dated   06.09.2014   passed   by   respondent   No.1­The 
Commissioner   of   Police,   Ahmedabad   City,   is   hereby   quashed   and   set 
aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if the detenue 
is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute 
to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(A.J.DESAI, J.)
chandresh

Page 4 of 4


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

64 queries in 1.341 seconds.