MER ALSI LAKHAND BHIMA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Magistrate, Jamnagar has passed an order of detention against the petitioner under section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to is the Act). The petitioner is challenging in this petition the said order of detention and also his continued detention on various grounds.

(2.) The order of detention has been passed on the ground that the petitioner is a bootlegger and is involved in storing, selling, transporting and consumption of liquor. After narrating some of the cases filed against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act, it is further stated in the grounds that the petitioner is violating the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act every now and then and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In view of this repeated involvement in the said prejudicial activities inspite of Dumber of cases registered against him, the detaining authority was also satisfied that the provisions of ordinary law were not sufficient for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from carrying on that activity and that it was necessary to detain him under the Act.

(3.) It was urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there was no material before the detaining authority on the basis of which he could have been personally satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. After referring to the First Information Reports registered against the petitioner and referred to in the grounds of detention, it was pointed out that none of them contains anything which could not have enabled the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner were causing disturbance in the even tempo of public life or were causing any harm, danger, alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof. It was also urged that there was no material on the basis of which the detaining authority could have come to the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner were likely to cause such effects. It was also urged that only from the nature of the activities carried on by the petitioner no such inference could have been legitimately and reasonably drawn by the detaining authority. In absence of any material, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order must be regarded as not genuine; and the order of detention should be quashed.