BABUBHAI DANJIBHAI RATHOD Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-detenu has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26. 8. 2007 passed by respondent No. 1-Districit Magistrate, Bhavnagar 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 Act') whereby the petitioner has been detained as a bootlegger. In pursuance of the said impugned order, the petitioner is detained in jail.

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

(3.) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that four offences being CR. I. No. 67,68, 146 and 463 of 2007 under sections 66 (1)b and 65 (e) etc. under the Bombay Prohibition Act, were registered with 'c' Division police station Bhavnagar, wherein country as well as foreign 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 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 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.