VANRAJSINH PRATAPSINH JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner -detenue has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29.1.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 -the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, in exercise of power under sub -section(2) of Section (3) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for short) whereby the petitioner has been detained as a 'dangerous person'. In pursuance of the said impugned order, the petitioner is detained in Bharuch Jail, Bharuch.

(3.) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that there are two offences being CR Nos.128 of 2007 and 15 of 2008 have been registered against the detenu at 'A' Division Police Station, Rajkot and Rajkot Taluka Police Station, Rajkot under the provisions of Sections 379, 448, 170, 384 and 114 of IPC, wherein a Hero Honda Motorcycle and two Mobile phones were found from the possession of the detenue. On the basis of registration of these cases, the detaining authority held that the present detenue was carrying on activities of theft which is harmful to the health of the public. It is held by the detaining authority that as the detenue is indulged in illegal activities, it is required to restrain the detenue from carrying out further illegal activities, i.e. theft. The detaining authority has placed reliance on the above registered offences and statements of unnamed witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the activities of the detenue can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be disturbing the 'public order.' It is seen from the grounds that a general statement that has been made by the detaining authority that consuming liquor is injurious to health. In fact, a perusal of the order passed by the detaining authority shows that the grounds which are mentioned in the order are in reference to the situation of 'law and order' and not 'public order'. Therefore, on this ground, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated on account of non -application of mind and the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.