OM PRAKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/ detenu challenging the validity of the order of detention dated 3-1-1989 made by the detaining authority, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. The detaining authority further directed the petitioner/detenu to be detained in Sabarmati Central Jail in pursuance of the said detention order. The detenu has been furnished with copies of the grounds of detention and all the other materials inclusive of the statements of the witnesses on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction for passing this impugned order has been reached by the detaining authority. The pith and substance of the alleged antisocial activities of the detenu as mentioned in the grounds of detention are that the detenu as a bootleggar was engaged in unlawfully storing and selling the country-made and foreign liquor at Dhabawali Chawl, Saraspur, Ahmedabad through himself and his associates and was also causing injuries to innocent persons of that locality by using lethal weapons thereby unleashing a reign of terror in the said area. In this regard four cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act; one under the Indian Arms Act and another under the Indian Penal Code have been registered. For a better understanding, we reproduce the relevant portion of the grounds of detention giving the details of the alleged anti-social activities of the detenu as found in the grounds of detention:

(2.) IN support of the above allegations the sponsoring authority has placed the statements of 4 witnesses recorded on the 1st and 2/01/1989 whose names are not disclosed as permitted under S. 9(2) of the Act. According to the detaining authority the recourse for actions under S. 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act or under S. 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act could be of no avail.

(3.) MR. G. A. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently urged that the detaining authority, considering the antecedents and the past antisocial activities of the detenu has made this impugned order with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city and to ensure that the detenu's activities do not jeopardise the larger interest of the citizens of the said area. According to him, the decision in Piyush Kantilal Mehta's case, (AIR 1989 SC 491) has no application to the facts of the present case. He attempts to distinguish Piyush Mehta's case from the instant case on their facts stating that in Piyush Mehta's case, there were only two incidents of which one had ended in acquittal and that the representation of the petitioner in that case was pending before the Advisory Board, whilst in the present case there are six incidents and the Advisory Board had submitted its report opining that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu.