PRAKASH @ JEKY GORDHANJI RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of detention dated 04/02/2013 passed by respondent No.2 herein ­ the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short "the PASA Act") by detaining the detenue as a "bootlegger" as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Along with the order of detention, the detenue is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, there is a reference of one criminal case pending against the detenue. The case is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, in the year 2012.

(2.) MR .Atit Thakore, learned advocate for the detenue 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 detenue on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. However, learned counsel for the detenue submits that, except FIR registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, there was no other material before the detaining authority whereby it could be inferred reasonably that the detenue is a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and required to be detained as the detenue's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenue has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Court in the case of Commissioner of police, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 491 and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in Letters Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police) which would squarely help the detenue.

(3.) HAVING heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of the case, I am of the view that FIR registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to arrive at subjective satisfaction to the effect that the activities, as alleged, are prejudicial to the public order or lead to disturbance of public order. There has to be nexus and link for such activities with disturbance of the public order. On careful perusal of the material available on record and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra) and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in Letters Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police), I am of the view that the activities of the detenue cannot be said to be in any manner prejudicial to the public order and therefore, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside.