FIROZKHAN JITSING RATHOD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has sought the relief of order dated 03.01.2007 of his detention being set aside. That impugned order dated 03.01.2007 is issued by Police Commissioner, Vadodara in exercise of his powers conferred under the provisions of section 3 (2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA" for short) on the basis of the opinion formed by the detaining authority that it was necessary to do so to prevent breach of public order on account of involvement of the petitioner in one incident of breach of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and an offence being III-C.R.No.248 of 2006 under the Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 being registered on 27.12.2006 against the petitioner in Makarpura Police Station of Vadodara.

(2.) Even as the present petition was admitted on 26.04.2007 and an affidavit-in-reply of the detaining authority was ready and executed on 14.06.2007, it was submitted to this court and copy thereof supplied to the petitioner only on 16.10.2007 when the matter was taken up for final hearing. It is stated in that affidavit: "6...... I say and submit that the order of detention has been passed on the basis of documentary evidence. I say and submit that one offence has been registered against the petitioner under sections 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic in Women & Girls Act, 1956. I say and submit that the petitioner has not been falsely involved in the offence, but after collecting ample evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner has been arrested. I say and submit that the petitioner is doing illegal activities in a sequence and, hence the order of detention is passed under the provisions of PASA. I say and submit that sufficient documentary evidences are available against the petitioner and same have been supplied to the petitioner so that the petitioner can make an effective representation. Therefore, no fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India are violated and the order of detention is just, legal and proper". While arguing on the basis of the aforesaid affidavit, learned A.G.P. Ms. Bhavika Kotecha fairly conceded that two co-detenues detained under identical orders passed on the same grounds and material were already released upon the orders of detention being set aside by this Court by orders dated 14.6.2007 in Special Civil Applications No.2248 of 2007 and 2263 of 2007. It was also fairly conceded that neither any distinguishing feature from those cases nor any additional arguments were available for the respondents.

(3.) In the above facts, it was sought to be argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was involved in a very serious offence of indulging in immoral trafficking and that his activities were a threat to public order since his continued involvement in such activities could be hazardous to public health 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.