AVCHARBHAI MOHANBHAI UPASARIA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Avcharbhai Upasaria, who came to be detained on the ground of his alleged activities as a 'property-grabber', by this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 12-8-1990 under Sec. 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short-PASA) passed by Mr. P. N. Roychowdhary, District Magistrate, Rajkot (for short - the detaining authority) inter alia praying for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and for quashing and setting aside the detention order, setting him at liberty forthwith.

(2.) Miss D. R. Kachhavah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner though has raised several contentions in the petition, has mainly chosen to attack the impugned order of detention on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority stands vitiated as the activities alleged against the detenu were disturbing the social order instead of public order. * for a writ for quashing the order of detention passed against the Petitioner. Making good this submission, Miss Kachhavah has invited our attention to the concluding para 3 of the alleged grounds of detention, wherein it has been stated that since the petitioner as a 'land-grabber' has shattered the social order and thereby created an atmosphere of insecurity, it was necessary to detain him. Now it is not difficult to appreciate this point as no order of detention can ever be passed till the detaining authority arrives at the satisfaction of the alleged activities being prejudicial to the public order. It hardly, requires to be mentioned that there is a gulf of difference between 'social order' and 'public order.'

(3.) As against the above, Mr. P. S. Chapaneri, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondents submitted that unquestionably the order of detention dated 12- 8-1990 at Annexure 'A' has been passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. In fact, the expression 'public order' has been specifically referred to in the said impugned detention order itself. Mr. Chapaneri, while substantiating this submission, read out the relevant portion of the detention order, which is as under :