Decided on August 26,1988

Police Commissioner Ahmedabad Respondents


B.S.KAPADIA - (1.)The petitioner Rajiyabanu has challenged the order of detention dated 9-3-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against her husband Hyder alias Bhura Gulam Hussain Shaikh with a prayer for writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ and for quashing and setting aside the order of detention.
(2.)The Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad who is the respondent No. 1 and the detaining authority has passed the impugned order on his being satisfied with respect to said Hyder @ Bhura Gulam Hussain Shaikh that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City it was necessary to make order directing that the said Hyder @ Bhura Gulam Hussian Shaikh be detained and accordingly passed the order under sub-sec (1) of Sec. 3 of the Act. The detenu has been served with the order as also grounds for detention on the same day i. e. 9-3-1988.
(3.)On persual of the grounds it appears that there are four cases pending against the detenu under the Bombay Prohibition Act being C. R. Nos 342 of 1985 145 of 1985 159 of 1987 as also one case being C. R. No. 22 of 1988 of Viramgam Town. In the aforesaid cases large quantities of Indian made Foreign liquor was seized. There were also cases filed under Chapter XVI of the IPC namely C. R. No. 24 of 1986 and 2 of 1988 of Kalupur Police Station and C. R. No. 25 of 1987 of D. C. B. Police Station against the detenu. There is also reference of statements of fond witnesses recorded on 31-12-1987 3 7 and 17-1-1988. After considering various other alternative less drastic remedies in the nature of proceedings under Sec. 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act externment proceedings under Secs. 57(c) and 56(8) of the Bombay Police Act as also prosecution under the ordinary law the detaining authority was of the opinion that the said remedies were not enough and effective and that the only last alternative was to detain him and he has accordingly passed the impugned order.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.