CHHAGANBHAI BABARBHAI ODEDRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to add Superintendent, Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad as respondent No. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner to carry out amendment forthwith.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order of detention dated 9.1.2014 passed by respondent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') by detaining the detenu as a "property grabber" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. Along with the order of detention, the petitioner is also served with the grounds of detention. It is alleged that the petitioner tried to enter into transaction of Government land and tried to grab the property. It is submitted by Mr. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the petitioner that in the present case, complaint being C.R. No. 173 of 2013 is filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s. 4(1)(A) of the Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 and section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. It was argued that the petitioner was himself got shocked when he was detained pursuant to the impugned order on the ground that he has been treated as "property grabber" defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Desai submitted that the conduct of the detenu is covered under Section 2(h) of the Act and, therefore, the order of detention does not require any interference by this court.

(3.) THE order of detention is passed on the basis of what has come to be known as the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority such subjective satisfaction has to be arrived at on two points. Firstly, on the veracity of facts imputed to the person to be detained and secondly, on the prognostication of the detaining authority that the person concerned is likely to indulge again in the same kind of notorious activities. Whereas, normal laws are primarily concerned with the act of commission of the offence, the detention laws are concerned with character of the person who has committed or is likely to commit an offence. The detaining authority has, therefore, to be satisfied that the person sought to be detained is of such a type that he will continue to violate the laws of the land if he is not preventively detained. So, the commission of isolated laws of infraction of law, not done in an organized or systematic manner, may not be sufficient for the detaining authority to justifiably come to the conclusion that there is no alternate but to preventively detain the person.