MARGARET ALIAS MERRY Vs. COMMISIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner- detenu, has challenged the order dated 1. 9. 2007 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, in exercise of powers under section 3 (1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1085 (for short, 'the Act') declaring the petitioner to be a "bootlegger" within the meaning of the PASA Act. In pursuance of the said impugned order the petitioner is detained in jail. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. No affidavit-in-reply is filed by the learned AGP on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the petition.

(2.) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that e five offences - CR. I. No. 5089,5094, 5108 of 2006, 5063, and 5095 of 2007 were registered against the petitioner under sections 66 (b), 65 (e) etc. under the Bombay Prohibition Act wherein quantity of 20, 5, 9, 4 and 5 litres, respectively of country liquor was found from the possession of the detenu. On the basis of registration of these cases, the detaining authority held that the present detenu was carrying on activities of selling country liquor which is harmful to the health of the public. It is held by the detaining authority that as the detenu is indulged in illegal activities, it is required to restrain him from carrying out further illegal activities i. e. selling of country liquor. In the opinion of this court, the activities of the detenu can, by no stretch of reasoning, 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 of the detaining authority is vitiated on account of non-application of mind and the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) EXCEPT two statements of the anonymous witnesses, there is no material on record which shows that the petitioner-detenu is carrying out illegal activities of selling country liquor which is harmful to the health of the public. he aforesaid cases under the provisions of Prohibition Act, In the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat (2000 (1) GLH 393, having considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 740), this court held that the cases, wherein the detention orders are passed on the basis of the statements of the witnesses falls under the maintenance of "law and order" and not public order".