AJITBHAI KALUBHAI MAHIDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner -detenu has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 27.7.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 -Police Commissioner, Vadodara City, whereby, in exercise of power under sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act (for short, 'PASA') whereby the petitioner has been detained as a 'bootlegger'. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner is detained in jail.

(3.) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that one offence being CR No.III -237 of 2007 under Sections 66(1)(b), 65(e), 81 under the Bombay Prohibition Act, were registered with Chhani Police Station, wherein quantity of different brands of Indian Made Foreign Liquor ('IMFL' for short) of 150 bottles were found in the possession of the detenu. On the basis of the registration of this case, the detaining authority held that the present detenu was carrying on activities of selling IMFL which is harmful to the health of the public. It is held by the detaining authority that as the detenu is indulged in illegal activities, it is required to restrain him from carrying out further illegal activities, i.e. selling of liquor. The detaining authority has placed reliance on the above registered offence and statements of unnamed witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the activities of the detenu can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be disturbing the public order. It is seen from the grounds that a general statement that has been made by the detaining authority that consuming liquor is injurious to health. In fact, a perusal of the order passed by the detaining authority shows that the grounds which are mentioned in the order are in reference to the situation of 'Law and order' and not 'public order'. Therefore, on this ground, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated on the account of non application of mind and the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.