DAYABHAI BHIMABHAI KARAMTA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties through video conferencing.

(2.) The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 23.01.2019 passed by the respondent - detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") detaining the petitioner - detenue as defined under section 2(b) of the Act.

(3.) Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the registration of FIRs being (i) C. R. No. III - 83 of 2018 registered on 31.05.20158 with C Division Police Station, Junagadh for the offence under Section 65(A)(E) of the Prohibition Act (ii) C. R. No. III - 81 of 2018 registered on 26.02.2018 with A Division Police Station, Junagadh for the offence under Section 65(A)(E) , 81 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act, (iii) C. R. No. III - 31 of 2018 registered on 26.02.2018 with C Division Police Station, Junagadh for the offence under Section 65(A)(E) , 81 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act and (iv) C. R. No. III - 11 of 2018 registered on 26.02.2018 with Botva Police Station for the offence under Section 65(A)(E) , 81 and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act by itself does not bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(b) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Rajubhai Manubhai Lalu, reported in 2019(3) GLH UJ3.