RAMANBHAI GABUBHAI SANSI Vs. E I KALASHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The detenu detained under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the "PASA Act") by an order dated 13.8.99 made by the District Magistrate, Dahod, has filed this petition challenging the order of detention annexed at Annexure A to the petition. The grounds of detention served on the detenu are placed on record at Annexure B dated 13.8.99. Reading the grounds of detention, the following facts emerge.

(2.) The detenu was found in the habit of importing foreign liquor illegally and keeping the same without pass or permit as also selling prohibited liquor. With a view to continue the nefarious activities, the detenu was administering threat with dire consequences to the innocent people. The detenu was found in the habit of chasing innocent women visiting the hospital known as Urban Bank Hospital situated in Dahod. On account of these activities, there was no safety of females visiting the hospital without any escort. The Detaining Authority has pointed out that there were seven cases pending against the detenu. The details of which are as under:-

(3.) The Detaining Authority was satisfied that despite the fact that there is a prohibition in the State of Gujarat, the detenu by committing offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act was bringing illicit liquor illegaly and by keeping the same without pass or permit was selling the same. The Detaining Authority found him as a bootlegger. It is also indicated in the grounds of detention that on account of terror of the detenu the witnesses were not coming forward to disclose the details. However, on assurance being given by the Detaining Authority, they have made statements before the Police with a condition that their identity shall not be disclosed. The Detaining Authority was satisfied that the apprehension in the mind of witnesses was genuine and therefore the names and details of witnesses were not disclosed to the detenu. It is also indicated in the grounds of detention that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial and the activities of the detenu has affected adversely or was likely to affect adversely the maintenance of the public order. The Apex Court in case of Kanuji S Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1993(2) GLH Pg.415 has taken a view that when the Detaining Authority has specifically mentioned in the grounds that the activity of the detenu was likely to cause harm to the public health and that by itself is sufficient to affect adversely the public order as defined by the Act. In the instant case, the Detaining Authority was subjectively satisfied on account of the activities of the detenu which have been enumerated above and the activities of the detenu were likely to cause harm to the public health and that by itself can be said to be sufficient affecting adversely the public order as defined by the Act.