PARESH @ CHAKO SHANABHAI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFFIDAVIT -in-reply filed by respondent No.2 herein - the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City, is taken on record.

(2.) THOUGH the petitioner is detained by the authority on 16/1/2013 pursuant to the impugned order of detention dated 29/11/2012 passed by the respondent No.2 herein, the present petition is taken up for final hearing on following

(3.) MR .H.R.Prajapati, 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.