SANJAY @ TAKO CHHAGANBHAI UGHREJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 23.1.2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 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.

(2.) BRIEF facts as arising from the petition are that an F.I.R. being Prohibition C.R. No. 5250 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 66(b), 65(a)(e) and 116B of the Bombay Prohibition Act on 18.12.2013 before Lodhika police station. It is alleged by the petitioner in the petition that the petitioner is apprehending that the respondent No. 2 is going to pass detention order against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is involved in the bootlegging activities and therefore, this petition at pre -execution stage. The petitioner was arrested and thereafter, released on regular bail on 1.1.2014.

(3.) THE respondent State has not filed Affidavit -in -reply. Therefore, averments and contentions raised in the petition remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. It is contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under the law. It is further stated that an order of detention is passed by the authority under the said Act against the petitioner. It is further stated 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 further stated that the present petition has been filed with misconception of facts and law at the stage of pre -execution of detention order. It was contended that the petitioner was required to surrender before challenging the order of detention which is not yet served to him. It was further 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 further stated 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 '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 respondent State has placed on record detention order No. J/MAG/PASA/3/2014 dated 23.1.2014 passed by the respondent No. 2 for Court's perusal.