S.H.Vora, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 30.11.2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of powers under Sub -Section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act') at pre -detention stage. Vide judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 passed in LPA No. 1157 of 2013, the Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter to decide afresh after calling upon the detention order and grounds for detention. Accordingly, after calling upon the detention order for Court's perusal, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.
(2.) BRIEF facts as arising from the petition are that an F.I.R. being C.R. No. III -5168 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(b), 65(a)(e) and 116B of the Bombay Prohibition Act on 8.9.2011 before Naroda police station. It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner is doing a business in Ahmedabad City since last several years. That the police authorities arrested one Nimesh @ Bakri Kaniyalal Maneklal Barot in connection with the aforementioned FIR. The police authorities showed the petitioner as wanted in the said alleged offence. That the police authority had falsely implicated the petitioner in the alleged offence only on the basis of statement of the co -accused Nimesh@ Bakri Kaniyalal Maneklal Barot. The said co -accused was detained under the PASA on 24.9.2011 and therefore, the petitioner is apprehending that detention order is likely to be passed against him and therefore, this petition at pre -detention stage. Upon serious apprehension that the order of detention has already been passed against the petitioner, the present petition is preferred.
(3.) AN affidavit -in -reply is filed by the respondent No. 2 contending that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under the law. In the said reply, it is stated by the respondent No. 2 that an order of detention is passed by the authority under the said Act against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2, the petitioner has preferred this petition at a pre -mature stage apprehending that the respondent authorities would invoke the provisions of the said Act against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2, the present petition has been filed with misconception of facts and law at the stage of pre -execution of detention order. It was contended that the petitioner was required to surrender before challenging the order of detention which is not yet served to him. It was further contended that since the detaining authority on a subjective satisfaction, after perusal of relevant materials placed before it including the documents relating to one offence registered against the petitioner that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention was passed against the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 2, the detaining authority, after carefully considering, pursuing, examining and applying its mind to all the relevant materials placed before it as well as legal provisions applicable to the same, was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is a 'bootlegger' as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and hence, passed the order of detention against the petitioner to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The State has placed on record detention order No. PCB/DTN/PASA/836/2011 dated 30.11.2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 for Court's perusal.;