JAYESHBHAI MANIRAM AGRAWAT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has sought the relief of order dated 02.11.2006 of his detention being set aside. That impugned order dated 02.11.2006 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.629 of 2006 under the Prohibition Act was registered on 19.09.2006 against the petitioner in Kapodra Police Station of Surat in which 286 bottles of liquor is said to have been recovered 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.) Even as the present petition was admitted on 22.03.2007 and Rule was made returnable on 18.04.2007 and an affidavit-in-reply of the detaining authority was ready and executed on 30.05.2007, it was submitted to this court and copy thereof supplied to the petitioner on 26.06.2007. 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.