ISMAILBHAI SUMARBHAI SHAIKH MIYANA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for writ of certiorari for quashing the detention order dated 26.2.1998 and habeas corpus for immediate release of the petitioner from illegal detention in pursuance of the aforesaid order of detention.

(2.) The brief facts are that the Detaining Authority under section 3(2) of the Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 ( for short 'PASA') passed the impugned detention order. The grounds for detention show that the petitioner was identifying himself as 'DADA' of the locality. Several offences under Prohibition Act were registered against the petitioner. According to the grounds of detention 8 cases under Prohibition Act were registered against the petitioner on different dates between September,1996 to January,1998. In addition to this the petitioner was detained under PASA Act earlier vide orders dated 18.12.1992 and 19.12.1995. It was also alleged that the petitioner was giving threat to the Police Officers of the concerned police station, whenever they raided the distillery of the petitioner, where he was distilling, storing and selling the country made liquor. An offence was also registered against the petitioner on 23.11.1997 for giving threat to prohibition police station officer. Besides this, six witnesses gave secret statements against the petitioner which was also disclosed in the grounds of detention. On the aforesaid material the detaining authority reached subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was carrying on antisocial activity of filtering and selling country made liquor. This activity of the petitioner was causing financial and physical injury to the residents of the locality and it was likely to repeat hooch tragedy which seriously affected public at large in the past. These activities of the petitioner were considered to be against the maintenance of public order and hence the order of detention was passed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on various grounds.