KALPESH VINODCHANDRA BHAVSAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The petition is directed against the order of detention dated 23.8.2010 passed by respondent No.2, in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'PASA Act') by detaining the detenu as a bootlegger as defined under section 2 (b) of the Act.

(2.) LEARNED advocate for the detenu restricted his argument to the extent of order of detention and submits that registration of FIR itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and therefore, the public order. The order of detention is assailed by the detenu on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. However, learned counsel for the detenu has focussed his arguments mainly on the ground that except one FIR registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, there was no other material before the detaining authority whereby it could be inferred reasonably that the detenu is a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act and required to be detained as the detenu's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenu has placed reliance on relevant observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of Police, reported in AIR 1989 SC 491 and the judgment and order dated 22.8.2000 of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : M.R. Calla and R.R. Tripathi, JJ.), in Letters Patent Appeal No.223 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No.554 of 2000 (Ashok Balabhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat) which would squarely help the detenu.

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of the complaint would go to show that the detenu had, in fact, indulged into such activities, which can be said to be disturbing the public health and public order. LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that there was sufficient material before the detaining authority to pass the order of detention and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.