- (1.) PERUSED the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and affidavit -in -reply filed by the detaining authority and heard learned advocate Ms.Banna Datta for learned advocate Mr. Shaikh for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr.Dabhi for the respondent -State.
(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 4.7.2013 passed by the respondent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 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 Section 2(b) of the Act.
(3.) LEARNED advocate for the detenue submits that order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that two offences registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide Prohibition C.R. No.64 of 2013 for the offence punishable u/s 66B, 65AE and 116B of the Prohibition Act and Prohibition C.R. No.74 of 2013 for the offence punishable u/s 66B, 65AE and 116B of the Prohibition Act are not of such magnitude and intensity as to have the effect of disturbing the public order so as to pass an order under Section 3(1) of the PASA Act. Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the detaining authority has not applied its mind to the vital facts and there was non -application of mind before recording the order of detention. In support of the above contention, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the following case -laws: 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); Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of police, 1989 AIR(SC) 491Om Prakash vs. Commissioner of Police and others, 1989 4 JT 177Kanuji S. Zala vs. state of Gujarat and others, 1999 2 GLH 415. Learned A.G.P. for the respondent -State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenue, indicating that the detenue is in the habit of indulging into activities as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and, considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and the detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court. For such submission, the learned A.G.P. took me through the grounds upon which detaining authority satisfied to detain the petitioner.;