NILESHBHAI KISHORBHAI MISTRY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order of detention dated 12. 8. 2008 passed by respondent No. 1, 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.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the detenue restricted his arguments to the extent of order of detention and submits that registration of FIR/s itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and therefore the public order. The order of detention is assailed by the detenue on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. However, learned counsel for the detenue has focused his arguments mainly on the ground that except two offences 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 relevant observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of police, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 491 and the Judgment and order dated 22. 8. 2000 of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: M. R. Calla and R. R. Tripathi, JJ.), in Letters Patent Appeal No. 223 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No. 554 of 2000 (Ashok Balabhai Makwana vs. State of Gujarat) which would squarely help the detenue. Learned advocate for the detenue further submits that no affidavit-in-reply is filed by the State Government.