MALUBHAI BHIKHUBHAI CHAVDA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Commissioner of Police, Rajkot city, Rajkot, passed an order on August 18, 1999, in exercise of powers under Sec. 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ("P.A.S.A. Act" for short), detaining the detenu under the provisions of the P.A.S.A. Act for a period of one year (Annexure : A)

(2.) The grounds of detention of even date indicate that the detaining authority took into consideration one offence registered against the detenu under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu is a "bootlegger" and that his activities are detrimental to the public order. The detaining authority also considered the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedies and came to a conclusion that the powers under the P.A.S.A. Act are required to be exercised in order to immediately prevent the detenu from pursuing his illegal activities. The detaining authority also stated the previous involvement of the detenu in various offences, with a specific observation that their attempt to indicate antecedents of the detenu does not form part of the grounds of detention. The detenu was labelled as bootlegger and was ordered to be detained as his activities are found to be detrimental to public order and resorting to less drastic remedy was not possible to be resorted to as he was immediately required to be prevented from pursuing his activity

(3.) The detenu has approached this Court with this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order of detention on various counts. However, the only ground that is advanced by Mr. Gondaliya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the detaining authority has, while passing the order, fixed the period of detention of one year which the detaining authority was not empowered to do, since the order of detention requires approval of the government and confirmation of the Advisory Board. Mr. Gondaliya, therefore, submitted that the detention is rendered vitiated and may be quashed and set aside in light of decision in the case of Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1952 SC 27