JAGUBHAI VALABHAI VALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is oral judgment dated 29.10.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12014 of 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the challenge to order of detention dated 16.07.2018 passed by respondent No.2, District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, detaining the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, ('the PASA ACT') branding the petitioner as 'Bootlegger' as defined under Section 2(b) of the very Act, came to be negatived by confirming the order of detention.

(2.) According to learned Single Judge, the detaining authority while arriving at subjective satisfaction has taken into consideration all relevant material and limited scope of a writ court in interfering with such a decision making process of detaining authority the activities of the detenue were found to be prejudicial to public interest and that in view of registration of about 5 FIRs under the Prohibition Act, he was termed as a habitual offender and even submissions recorded of witnesses reveal that the petitioner detenue was not an innocent person and was actively participating in commission of crime by supplying huge quantity of liquor. The fact about pendency of criminal cases and filing of charge sheet was borne out from the record and accordingly order of detention was confirmed.

(3.) Mr.Bhavin Raiyani, learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that so far as registration of FIRs are concerned, in one of such criminal case registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 66(B), 65(E), 116 (2)(b) and 81 of the Prohibition Act, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhesan, vide judgment dated 06.07.2018 acquitted the petitioner while the order of detention was passed on 16.07.2018 and the above fact was not noticed, and therefore, the decision making process arriving at the activities of the petitioner prejudicial to the public interest and therefore also disturbing public order ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge as fatal to the case of detaining authority.