LILAJI SHANKARJI THAKOR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE to amend is granted. Amendment to be carried out in the meantime. 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 31. 01. 2008 passed by the respondent No. 1-Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad 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 bootlegger. In pursuance of the said impugned order, the petitioner is detained in Bharuch Jail.

(3.) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that eight offences being Prohibition CR No. 5063 of 2007; CR No. 5137 of 2007; CR No. 5238 of 2007; CR No. 5327 of 2007; CR No. 5334 of 2007; CR No. 5343 of 2007; CR No. 5383 of 2007; CR No. 5020 of 2008 under the provisions of Section 66 (b) under the Bombay Prohibition Act, were registered with Shehar Kotda Police Station, wherein a quantity of total 60 ltrs. of country made was 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 selling country made liquor 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 him from carrying out further illegal activities, i. e. selling of liquor. 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 detenu 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.