BABU AMIRMIYA A SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by a detenu who had come to be detained by the District Magistrate, Kheda, as per his detention order Annexure-AA, now permitted to be produced on record, at page 14-A, passed by him under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Ordinance, 1985. The grounds of detention given to the petitioner on 11.6.1985 and being dated 10.6.1985 are to be found at Annexure-B. As per those grounds which are two in number, the petitioner was not having ostensible means of livelihood and was, therefore, living on sale of illicit liquor and gambling in the areas of his residence, namely, Poison Dairy Road, Anand, and because of these activities of his, the people in the locality and particularly ladies, developed a sense of insecurity and were not able to move freely. Because of the petitioner and his associates unto imidations, the people of that locality were not able to raise their voice against him in public. As the ground No. 2, these are enumerated about twenty prohibition cases registered against him for possession of illicit liquor during the span of the period of 1984 and 1985. On the strength of those two sets of circumstances the District Magistrate stated that he was satisfied that the public order was in jeopardy at the detenus behest, and, therefore, he was required to be detained.

(2.) The matter was called out before us today and we find that the order has no legs to stand upon. Indulging in gambling activity by itself would make a man an anti-social element under the Act, because it is not an offence under one of the two chapters viz. XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code under which the commission of offences would make a man an antisocial element. His involvement in the offence under section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act or some such other additional section also will not by itself make him a man liable to disturb the public order. They are the cases ex facie relating to law and order and not public order. With respect to his activity in selling liquor and indulging in gambling, it is vaguely stated that because of those two activities of his, namely, indulging in sale of illicit liquor and gambling, the people of that area in general and ladies in particular had developed a sense of insecurity. It is difficult to understand this prognosis on the part of the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate could not simply draw an inference in this regard from the two types of acts concerning law and order situation. We are not oblivious of the fact that such acts also, if publicly and flagrantly done in a defiant manner in a public place, may cause disturbance of peace and tranquility in the area and they may become the problems of public order. But they by themselves cannot give rise to any such situation. The Supreme Court, has, therefore, very strongly deprecated the practice of relying upon vague allegations because a petitioner will not be in a position to make any effective representation against his detention in exercise of his right guaranteed by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In above view of the matter the impugned order annexure-AA is quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed by making the rule absolute. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required to be detained in connection with some other lawful cause.