HITEN JAYENDRABHAI MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing present petition the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order of preventive detention dated 3.5.2012 passed, against the petitioner recorded at CR No.I-9 of 2012 dated 30.1.2012 before Mandvi Police Station by the respondent No.2, in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short "PASA Act"). The detenu is branded as " dangerous/land grabber".

(2.) THE detenu came to be detained as " land grabber" on his involvement one offence registered at CR No. I-9 of 2012 lodged before Mandvi Police Station on 30.1. 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 (1a), 22(6) of the Gujarat Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Rules 3, 5 and 6 thereunder. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made against the detenue are not correct; that the material collected by the detaining authority and looking to the statement recorded by the detaining authority, it cannot be said that the alleged activities of the detenue would fall within the purview of "dangerous/land grabber." Learned Advocate Mr. Dattani for the petitioner submitted that the detention order against co- detenue namely Yogesh Manishankar Rajyaguru and Vinod @ Vinubhai Hirjibhai Thanki have been quashed and set aside by this Court vide order dated 21.8.2012 passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 8621 of 2012 and 8650 of 2012.

(3.) APPLYING the ratio of the above decisions, it is clear that before passing an order of detention, the detaining authority must come to a definite findings that there is threat to the 'public order' and it is very clear that the present case would not fall within the category of threat to a public order. In that view of the matter, when the order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority without having adequate grounds for passing the said order, cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.