SAVRABHAI DHANNAJI DEVASI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of detention dated 31.12.2011 passed by respondent No.1, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short? the Act) by detaining the detenu as a ?bootlegger? as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Along with the order of detention, the petitioner is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, there is a reference to five criminal cases pending against the petitioner. The cases is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. It is alleged that the petitioner is dealing in country liquor.

(2.) LEARNED advocate for the detenu submits that registration of FIR itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and therefore the public order. The order of detention is assailed by the detenu on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. However, learned counsel for the detenu submits that, except FIRs 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 detenu's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenu 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.J. 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 detenu.

(3.) IN the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of detention dated 31.12.2011 is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if the detenu is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.