SHEELA ASHOK RANA Vs. M M MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the wife of Ashok Jinabhai Rana, detenu, who is detained in Jail pursuant to the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, under section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Ordinance, 1985.

(2.) In the grounds of detention it is stated that the detenu was engaged in an anti-social activities of transporting, storing and selling illicit liquor. Then it is stated that he bas been involved in number of cases filed against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Thereafter, 17 cases in which the detenu is involved are enumerated, and then it is stated that that is how the detenu is known in that locality as a bootlegger and a goonda. What was mant by the word Goonda has been clarified by the detaining authority in the affidavit-in-reply by stating that the detenu is a dangerous person as defined by the Ordinance, thereafter it is stated in the grounds that the said anti social activities of the detenu had created an atmosphere of fear and alarm and that is how the public order in that locality was adversely affected. Then it is stated that some action has been taken against the detenu under the ordinary law; but in spite of that action he has continued on his prejudicial activity. On the basis of these grounds the detaining authority was satisfied that the activities of the detenu were pre-judicial to the maintenance of public order and that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The material on the basis of which the grounds were formulated has been supplied to the detenu.

(3.) The first contention urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detenu is a dangerous person is based upon misconstruction of the relevant provisions of the Ordinance, and that would vitiate not only the said satisfaction but also the order of detention. It was submitted that no true construction of section 2(c) of the Ordinance the detaining authority could not have reasonably come to the conclusion that the detenu is a dangerous person.