JITAJI HATHAJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 13.06.2013 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Mehsana in purported exercise of powers under Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act') at pre -detention stage. Vide the judgment and order dated 23.12.2013 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1081 of 2013, the Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter to decide afresh after calling upon the detention order and grounds for detention. Accordingly, after calling upon the detention order for Court's perusal, the present petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) BRIEF facts as arising from the petition are that an F.I.R. being Prohibition C.R. No. 71 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(1)B, 65AE, 116(1)B and 81 of the Prohibition Act came to be registered on 08.05.2013 before Kheralu police station. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the liquor has been found in and/or near the house of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and other accused person have been enlarged on bail on 29.05.2013.

(3.) IT appears that the respondent - State has not filed affidavit -in -reply and, therefore, the averments and contentions raised in this petition remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. However, it is contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under the law. It is contended that an order of detention is passed by the authority under the said Act against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has preferred this petition at a pre -mature stage apprehending that the respondent authorities would invoke the provisions of the said Act against the petitioner. It is contended that the present petition has been filed with misconception of facts and law at the stage of pre -execution of detention order. It is contended that the petitioner was required to surrender before challenging the order of detention which is not yet served to him. It is contended that since the detaining authority on a subjective satisfaction, after perusal of relevant materials placed before it including the documents relating to one offence registered against the petitioner that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the order of detention was passed against the petitioner. It is contended that the detaining authority, after carefully considering, pursuing, examining and applying its mind to all the relevant materials placed before it as well as legal provisions applicable to the same, was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is a 'bootlegger' person as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and hence, passed the order of detention against the petitioner to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The State has placed on record detention order No. MAG/DET/PASA/42/2013 dated 13.06.2013 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Mahesana for Court's perusal.