RAVJIBHAI KALIDAS VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The detenue has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the respondent No.2-Commissioner of Police, Vadodara in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for short) whereby the petitioner has been detained as a 'bootlegger'.

(3.) Along with the detention order, the petitioner detenue has been supplied with the grounds of detention. From the grounds of detention, it appears that two offences being Prohibition CR Nos.5 of 2010 of 2010 and 33 of 2010 have been registered against the detenue. The aforesaid offences has been registered with Kishanwadi Police Stationunder the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, wherein total quantity of 152 ltrs. of country made liquor was found from the possession of the detenue. On the basis of registration of these cases, the detaining authority held that the present detenue was carrying on activities of selling country made liquor which is harmful to the health of the public. It is held by the detaining authority that as the detenue is indulged in illegal activities, it is required to restrain the detenue from carrying out further illegal activities, i.e. selling of liquor. The detaining authority has placed reliance on the above registered offences and statements of unnamed witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the activities of the detenue can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be disturbing the 'public order.' It is seen from the grounds of detention 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 account of non-application of mind and the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.