VISHMANBHAI D DHOLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has prayed to issue the appropriate writ, order or direction, against the State Authorities to take appropriate action against the erring Officers, including the detaining Authority and sponsoring Authority for misusing the powers exercised u/S. 3(2) Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act', for short) claiming that it was in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has also prayed to direct the respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat to adequately compensate him for illegal detention vide an order dated 16.12.2007 u/S. 3 (2) of the PASA Act by the respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Amreli being detaining Authority. It is also prayed to direct the respondent No. 1 - State to prosecute the respondent No. 2 - District Magistrate, Amreli and the sponsoring Authority for the offence u/S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code for illegally detaining the petitioner under the PASA Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the petitioner can be summarized as under : -

(3.) In reply, respondent No. 2 has simply stated that he being a detaining Authority, has passed the order under the PASA Act in exercising powers confirmed under the Act and that contentions in the petition by the petitioner are not correct. It is contended that while passing the order of detention, he had verified the investigation report and documents submitted to him by Police Inspector, Dhari and, therefore, the Court should not exercise its extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 since such petition is not tenable at law. In paragraph 10 of such affidavit in reply, the deponent Mr. P. R. Sompura, District Magistrate, Amreli has on 25.6.2010 simply stated that solitary offence has been registered against the petitioner and during the investigation, it is clearly disclosed that the present petition is involved in the said offence and, therefore, after taking into consideration all materials placed before him and after application of mind to the facts and circumstance of the case as well as legal provisions applicable to the facts of the case, he arrived at subjective satisfaction that petitioner is a 'dangerous person' as defined u/S. 2(c) of the PASA Act and, therefore, to prevent him from acting in manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he has passed the order of detention and hence the same is legal, valid and proper. In general terms, it is stated that the contentions raised and allegations made by the petitioner are not true and correct. Therefore, practically, deponent No. 2 has failed to answer all allegations raised by the petitioner on factual aspect that how and why the order of detention was passed against a person when there is no sufficient evidence against him to prove that he is a 'dangerous person' and his activity is resulting into disturbance of public order.