IMRAN ANVARBHAI SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 10/02/2020 passed by respondent No.2 herein - Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short "the PASA Act") by detaining the detenue as a "bootlegger" as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Along with the order of detention, the detenue is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, there is a reference to one prohibition case pending against the detenue. The case is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

(2.) Learned advocate for the detenue submits that registration of FIR 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 submits that, except FIR registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, there was no other material before the detaining authority whereby it could be inferred reasonably that the detenue 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 judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of police, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 491 and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J... in Letters Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010 ( Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police ) which would squarely help the detenue.

(3.) Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of FIR would go to show that the detenue had, in fact, indulged into such activities, which can be said to be disturbing the public health and public order and in view of sufficient material before the detaining authority to pass the order of detention, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.