B. C. RAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has questioned in this writ petition the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention made on October 12, 1985 by the respondent No. 1 under sub -section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedbad city. The petitioner was detained by the respondents and was served with the grounds of detention along with the documents mentioned therein on the very day of detention that is, October 12, 1985. The grounds of detention were in Gujarati.
(2.) THE . petitioner in the writ petition has stated that he was previously detained under the National Security Act, 1980 S.R. No. PCB/DTN/PASA/37/85 on May 23, 1985 and was released on June 28, 1985. The petitioner had been detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to in short, as PASA Act'. The said order was challenged by writ petition before the Gujarat High Court which quashed the same and the petitioner was released from detention. The main thrust of detention is that the detaining authority in addition to new facts has taken into consideration the earlier two detention orders as well as the grounds of detention referred to therein presumably for the purpose of arriving at his subjective satisfaction that in spite of the earlier detention order which was of course, quashed and set aside the detenu has been persistently continuing his anti -social activities and as such the order of detention was clamped. This has vitiated the impugned order of detention. Other challenges such as non -disclosure of names and addresses of four witnesses whose statements have been mentioned with the grounds of detention and have been served along with the grounds as well as he vagueness of the statements made in the grounds about the alleged criminal activities of the detenu have rendered the order illegal and bad as the petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation against the same.
(3.) THE relevant portion of the grounds is extracted here under : "You have indulged into anti -social activities by selling, stocking and keeping in possession of yourself or through other persons the English and Deshi liquor of Dariapur area : in this connection the offences under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 are registered against you, wherein you were arrested, the details of which is as under: S.No. Police Station Offence Register Section Stock Seized Disposal No 1. Dariapur 106/88 Prohibition Act,Ss.66(3),65(A)(E),68,81,85(1) (3) 7575 ml. English, 5Lt. Deshi Liquor Rs. 1971/ - under investigation 2. Dariapur 120/88 Prohibition Act Secs.66(3),65(A), (E),68,81,85(1)(3). 8643ml English liquor Rs. 940/ - under investigation. 3. " 137/88 Prohibition Act Secs.66B,65(E),81 3105ml. English liquor Rs. 940/ - " 4. " 145/88 " 166 bottles. English liquor Rs. 1300/ - " 5. " 146/88 Prohibition Act, S. 66B,65E. 82 Lt. English liquor. Rs. 800/ - " Accordingly, upon careful perusal of the complaint and papers enclosed with the proposal it appears that you are a Prohibition Bootlegger and doing illegal activity of selling English and Deshi liquor. You and your compunctions are bearing and showing deadly weapons like Rampuri knife to the innocent persons passing through the said locality on the premise of being 'Batmidar' of police. And you are beating the person who oppose your activity of liquor, you are compelling to bring stock of liquor to the Motor Vehicles like Auto Rickshaw and upon denial to do so you threat to kill him by Rampuri knife; your customers who are drunken are teasing the women passing from there and if any one opposes or requests not to do so, you threat showing Rampuri knife to kill the innocent persons and an atmosphere of danger and violence is spread over because of your such offensive activities and as you are doing acts which are obstructive in maintaining public administration. You are an obstructer in maintaining public administration. You are an obstructer in maintaining public administration in view of the fact and result of your above stated arty -social activities, and fact of such instances are also stated by the peace loving people doing business in the above area. Copies of their statements are given to you herewith. As your offensive activities are obstructive in public administration you were detained under NASA 1980 by this office order No. PCB/DTN/NSA/37/85 dt. 23 -5 -85 and were released from detention on 28 -6 -85. And your offensive activities are obstructive to the maintenance to public administration that you were detained under PASA Act, 1985 by this office order No. PCB/DTN/PASA/36/86 dt. 26 -9 -86. As you have filed writ petition in the Honourable Gujarat High Court against this order the Honourable High Court has on 25 -6 -87 passed an order to release you from detention. Accordingly, looking to the overall fact, I am satisfied that you are prohibition bootlegger and known as a headstrong and angry person and an atmosphere of fear and violence is spread over in residents of the said locality because of your above anti -social activities, such activities cannot be refrained by taking steps under the common law." The affidavit of reply affirmed by Mr. S. N. Sinha, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city, has been filed on December 7, 1988 In paragraph 4, it has been stated that in fact the petitioner belongs to the gang of Abdul Latif and has not at all been falsely prosecuted. In any case, it has also been submitted that the petitioner was not good and was involved in activities which affect the society adversely. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit it has been denied that the grounds are not relevant for the purpose and the present detention order has been passed totally on different and fresh grounds, It has also been submitted therein that it is wrong to say that the earlier two orders passed against the petitioner were illegal in any manner. Out of the two detention orders, order of 1985 was passed under the National Security Act in view of the fact of public riots in the Ahmedabad city and order of 1986 was passed on the ground of the petitioner being bootlegger and dangerous person on account of pendency of certain prosecution and both of which were passed by his predecessor and therefore, the said orders have nothing to do with the present orders. It has been further submitted that it is absolutely wrong to say that the sponsoring authority has not submitted the earlier order of release of the petitioner by the Board and the Gujarat High Court. The grounds of detention make it abundantly clear that this fact was clearly considered and thereafter the detention order has been passed and therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the decision of detention would have been different if the earlier orders of release would have been placed before him.;