MOHANBHAI DEVSIBHAI SOLANKI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE 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 impugned order dated 4. 8. 2009 passed by the Respondent No. 1- Police Commissioner, 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 detenu has been detained as a "bootlegger". In pursuance of the said impugned order, the detenu is detained in Chhota-udepur Jail.

(3.) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that one offence being Prohibition CR No. 5159 of 2009 has been registered against the detenu at Sabarmati Police Station under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, wherein it is alleged that a quantity of 72 ltrs. of country made liquor was found from the possession of the detenu. On the basis of registration of this case, the detaining authority held that the present detenu 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 detenu is indulged in illegal activities, it is required to restrain the detenu from carrying on further illegal activities, i. e. selling liquor. The detaining authority has placed reliance on the above registered offence and statements of unnamed witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the activities of the detenu can, by no stretch of imagination, can 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.