SUHAG KANTILAL GHIYAD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner detenue has filed the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the detention order dated 3.7.2010 (executed on 4.7.2010), passed by the Respondent - Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, by exercising the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA Act", for short). The detenue is branded as "bootlegger".

(2.) Heard Mr. Bhavin S. Raiyani learned Advocate the Petitioner and Mr.L.B.Dabhi, learned AGP for the Respondents. Affidavit in Reply of Respondent Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, tendered today, shall be taken on record, and has been considered. The Petitioner came to be detained as "bootlegger" on his involvement in one offence arising under the Bombay Prohibition Act.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it is a settled legal position that on registration of one offence, no order of detention could have been passed, as the Petitioner cannot be branded as "bootlegger". It has been further submitted that the activities of the Petitioner cannot be said to be injurious to the public health or public order. It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is gross delay in passing the order of detention as well as there is gross delay in executing the order of detention.