YOGESH ALIAS YOGU CHELARAM RAJAI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-detenue and 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 the impugned order of detention dated 15. 10. 2007 passed by the respondent No. 2-Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, whereby in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'pasa') the petitioner has been detained as a 'bootlegger".

(3.) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that one offence has been registered against the petitioner - detenue at "b" Division Police Station, Rajkot City under Sections 66 (1)B and 65 (E) of the Bombay Prohibition Act wherein it is alleged that the petitioner is engaged in the illegal activity of selling of country made liquor of the total quantity of 400 ltrs. Which have been seized from the possession of the petitioner-detenue. On the basis of the registration of these cases, the detaining authority held that the present detenue was carrying on activities of selling 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 on further illegal activities, i. e. selling of liquor. The detaining authority has placed reliance on the above referred offences and statements of unnamed witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the activities of the detenue 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 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.