ANIL DAYASHANKAR PANDE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner- detenu, who is detained under the provisions of Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act ( "PASA" for short), has challenged his detention order dated 27-10-2005, by which he is detained as a "bootlegger" under Section 3 (1) read with Section 2 (b) of PASA. Along with the order of detention, the petitioner-detenu is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, there is a reference of three criminal cases filed against him under the provisions of the Prohibition Act.

(2.) The detaining authority after arriving at a subjective satisfaction has passed the aforesaid order of detention against the petitioner-detenu. According to the detaining authority, the petitioner-detenu has violated the law and order and public order. It is also stated in the detention order that the activities of the petitioner-detenu are prejudicial to the public health.

(3.) Learned advocate Ms. Bharti Rana who appeared on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Anil. S. Dave for the petitioner-detenu has vehemently submitted that it cannot be said that the detenu is a bootlegger simply because some criminal cases are registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that at the most the petitioner can be said to have violated the law and order, but it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated public order and there is no material on record for coming to the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to public health. She further submitted that only because the petitioner-detenu was alleged to have possessed foreign liquor, it cannot be said that this activity is prejudicial to public health. She further submitted that it cannot be said that consumption of foreign liquor affects the public health unless there is some material on record in this behalf. It is submitted by her that the authority has not applied its mind properly and came to the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to public health, even when there is no material on record in this behalf. In order to substantiate her say, Ms. Rana has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in District Collector, Ananthpur and another vs. V. Laxmanna reported in 2005 AIR SCW 1822. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court has observed as under in paragraph 7 :