SURESH CHANDRAPALSING SOMVANSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has sought the relief of order dated 11.01.2007 of her detention being set aside. That impugned order dated 11.01.2007 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.658 of 2006 under the Prohibition Act was registered on 15.12.2006 against the petitioner in Udhana Police Station of Surat in which 480 small bottles of liquor, each containing 180 ml., is stated to have been recovered from his possession. 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 08.03.2007 and Rule was made returnable on 10.05.2007 and an affidavit-in-reply of the detaining authority was ready and executed on 25.05.2007, it was submitted to this court and copy thereof supplied to the petitioner on 18.09.2007. 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: "5. ....I say that in the present case, amongst the relevant materials, I have carefully examined the documents relating to the one case registered against the detenu and from those materials, it is clear that the detenu falls within the definition of "boot-legger" as defined u/s.2(b) of the PASA Act. Therefore, on carefully scrutinising, examining and considering the materials placed before me including the papers pertaining to the above case and after applying my mind to the facts of the case, I came to the conclusion, after subjectively satisfying myself, that the detenu is dealing in illegal liquor business and he is disturbing the public order, public peace and public health and it is likely that continuance of her anti-social and boot-legging activities may cause grave or wide-spread danger to life, property and public health. Therefore, after subjectively satisfying that the anti-social and boot-legging activities of the detenu cannot be curbed or prevented immediately by resorting to less drastic remedy of taking action under the ordinary law, as a preventive measure, I have passed the order of detention against the detenu under the PASA Act with a view to immediately prevent him from continuing such illegal, anti-social and boot-legging activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the said order is passed with full application of mind and in compliance and in consonance with the provisions of the PASA Act as well as the Constitution of India and the said order is legal, valid and proper."

(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.