DINESH MANILAL RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought relief of order dated 16.03.2007 of his detention being set aside. That impugned order dated 16.03.2007 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 offence being III-C.R.Nos. 754 of 2006 and 113 of 2007 under the Prohibition Act were registered on 22.11.2006 and 27.02.2007 respectively against the petitioner in Karelibaugh Police Station of Vadodara in which 201 litres of liquor is stated to have been seized as muddamal. 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 as the present petition was admitted on 14.06.2007 and an affidavit-in-reply of the detaining authority was ready and executed on 04.07.2007, it was submitted to this court and copy thereof supplied to the petitioner only on 01.11.2007 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: "7. .....I say and submit that two offences have been registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act. I say and submit that all the evidence on record is sufficient to establish that the petitioner is involved in the offences. Therefore, the petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Section 2 (b) of PASA as "bootlegger". I say and submit that the liquor is injurious to health and by drinking it, likely to create health hazard in general public and, thus, the public order has been disturbed. Therefore, I passed the order of detention under the provisions of PASA, which is legal, just and proper". While arguing on the basis of the said affidavit, learned A.G.P. Mr.Shivang Shukla fairly conceded that co-detenu, Raju @ Dadhi @ Ravi Sukhdev Bansod, detained under identical order passed on the same grounds and material (in C.R. No.113 of 2007 registered on 27.2.2007) was already released upon the order of detention being set aside by this Court by order dated 13.09.2007 in Special Civil Application No.14151 of 2007. It was also fairly conceded that neither any distinguishing feature from that case 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 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.