SURESHKUMAR KRISHNARAM BISNOI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 11.2.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 -Police Commissioner, Surat 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 detenu as a bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Along with the order of detention, the detenu is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, there is a reference to one criminal case registered against the detenue before the Varachha Police Station being Prohibition CR No. III -79 of 2013. The case is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

(2.) Mr. A.R. Shaikh, learned Advocate for the detenu 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 detenu on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. However, learned Counsel for the detenu 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 detenu is a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and required to be detained as the detenu's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In support of the above submission, learned Counsel for the detenu has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. 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 No. 2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 9492 of 2010 (Aartiben v. Commissioner of Police) which would squarely help the detenu. He further submitted that co -detenue had preferred Special Civil Application No. 2235 of 2013 and has been released by this Court.

(3.) Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of FIR would go to show that the detenu had, in fact, indulged into such activities, which can be said to be disturbing the public health and public order and in view of sufficient material before the detaining Authority to pass the order of detention, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.