GAUTAM NARENDRARAO GHADGE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has sought the relief of order dated 16.02.2007 of his detention being set aside. That impugned order dated 16.02.2007 is issued by Police Commissioner, Vadodara 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 two offences being III-C.R. Nos. 311 of 2006 and 22 of 2007 under the Prohibition Act were registered on 10.11.2006 and 13.1.2007 in Navapura and Karelibaug Police Stations respectively against the petitioner in which 217 bottles of liquor is stated to have been recovered from him. According to the grounds of detention supplied with the impugned order, even as the aforesaid offences were 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 though the present petition was admitted on 12.04.2007 and an affidavit-in-reply of the detaining authority was executed on 21.05.2007, it was submitted to this court and copy thereof supplied to the petitioner only on 12.10.2007 when the matter was taken up for final hearing. 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.