LAWS(GJH)-2008-7-225

NARAYANBHAI ARJANBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On July 21, 2008
NARAYANBHAI ARJANBHAI SOLANKI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 14. 12. 2007 passed by Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad under the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'pasa Act' ).

(2.) LEARNED Advocate for the detenu has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 14. 12. 2007 by which detenu was arrested and sent to Bharuch Jail as well as to the grounds supplied therein. As per the grounds of detention, four criminal cases are shown as registered against the detenu which pertains to 'prohibition'. 2. 1 He has further submitted that in the order of detention it was stated that the detenu is carrying on anti-social activities and on the basis of aforesaid offences of 'bootlegging' registered against the detenu, he was termed as 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2 (b)of the P. A. S. A. Act. It was also stated in the impugned order that as the said bootlegging activities of the detenu are dangerous and affecting maintenance of 'public order' and 'public health', order of detention has been passed against him. 2. 2 He has submitted that on the basis of aforesaid criminal cases registered against the detenu, it cannot be said that the activities of the detenu has become prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public Order'. In support of his case he has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal" 1970 (1)SCC 98 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para-3 held as under,

(3.) THE learned A. G. P. for respondent-detaining Authority has supported the order of detention as well as grounds stated therein and has contended that the Authority has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence, no case is made out calling for interference of this Court.