BADARSING PANSING DABHI (DARBAR) THRO UNCLE LAKSHMANSINH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT THRO SECRETARY (SPECIAL) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Paras 1 to 3 XXX XXX XXX

(2.) Having heard the rival submit ssions 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 v. 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.

(3.) Para 5 XXX XXX XXX (RRP) (Petition allowed)