SAHDEVSINH LAYAKSINH TOMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-41
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on January 08,2016

SAHDEVSINH LAYAKSINH TOMAR Appellant
VERSUS
State of Gujarat and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.G. Shah, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 19/11/2015 passed by respondent No. 2, in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 3[1]/3[2] of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 [for short 'the Act'] by detaining the detenue as a "bootlegger" as defined under Sec. 2[b] of the Act.
(2.) Learned advocate for the detenue submits registration of two FIRs themselves cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and, therefore, the public order. He further 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 detenue is a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Sec. 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v/s. Commissioner of Police, reported in : AIR 1989 S.C. 491, Anil Dey v/s. State of West Bengal reported in : AIR 1974 SC 832, Smt. Angoori Devi v/s. Union of India reported in : AIR 1989 SC 371 and Darpan Kumar Sharma alias Dharban Kumar Sharma v/s. State of Tamil Nadu reported in : AIR 2003 SC 971 and the recent judgment dated 28/3/2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram : S.K. Mukhopadhyaya, 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 AGP submitted that registration of FIRs 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.