ARJUN NABADHAN PANDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has sought the relief of order dated 25.12.2006 of his detention being set aside. That impugned order dated 25.12.2006 is issued by Police Commissioner, Surat in exercise of his powers conferred under the provisions of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA" for short) on the basis that the petitioner was found to be repeatedly indulging in anti-social activity of bootlegging and an offence being III-C.R.No.1284 of 2006 under the Prohibition Act was registered on 12.12.2006 against the petitioner in Katargam Police Station of Surat in which 612 small bottles of liquor, each containing 180 ml., is stated to have been seized as muddamal from him. According to the grounds of detention supplied with the impugned order, even as the aforesaid offence was being investigated, other actions under the Prohibition Act were not possible and alcohol being injurious to health, there was likelihood of danger to public health on account of consumption of illicit liquor in which the petitioner was dealing. It is further stated that possibility of the petitioner continuing in anti-social activities could not be denied and hence it was found to be necessary to detain the petitioner after considering the documents and statements which were relied upon and supplied to the petitioner.

(2.) The present petition was admitted on 25.06.2007 and Rule was made returnable on 21.08.2007 and an affidavit-in-reply of the detaining authority executed on 18.08.2007 was also submitted to this Court. It is stated in that affidavit, inter alia, that prima facie involvement of the petitioner was established in the offence registered against him. It is further stated:

(3.) In the above facts, it was sought to be argued on behalf of the respondents that danger to public health caused by the activity of bootlegging by the petitioner substantiated the assumption of likelihood of public order being adversely affected and, for that reason, the subjective satisfaction about the necessity of preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the impugned order directing his detention were legal and justified.