KHANDUBHAI LALBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of detention dated 28.01.2013 passed by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Surat in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short" the Act) by detaining the detenu as a "bootlegger" as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Along with the order of detention, the petitioner is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, there is a reference to two criminal cases pending against the petitioner. The cases are registered under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

(2.) MR .A.R.Shaikh, learned advocate for the detenu 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 detenu on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. However, learned counsel for the detenu 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 detenu is a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and required to be detained as the detenu's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenu 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 detenu.

(3.) HAVING heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of the case, I am of the view that FIR registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to arrive at subjective satisfaction to the effect that the activities, as alleged, are prejudicial to the public order or lead to disturbance of public order. There has to be nexus and link for such activities with disturbance of the public order. On careful perusal of the material available on record and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra) 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), I am of the view that the activities of the detenu cannot be said to be in any manner prejudicial to the public order and therefore, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside.