(1.) The petitioner came to be detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (`PASA Act' for short) by virtue of an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, Rajkot on 18/02/1999, in exercise of power under section 3(1) of the PASA Act.
(2.) In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority took into consideration an offence registered against the petitioner under secs.66(B), 65(A), 65(E), 116(B) and 81(3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The authority also took into consideration the two statements recorded by the sponsoring authority on 15th February, 1999, and came to a conclusion that the facts stated by the witnesses were correct and that they genuinely apprehended danger to their person and property from the petitioner. The authority, therefore, came to a conclusion that there was need for exercise of power under section 9(2) of the PASA Act, and claimed privilege by not disclosing the identity of those witnesses. The authority also recorded subjective satisfaction about the petitioner being a bootlegger as defined under the PASA Act. The authority also recorded that he is satisfied that the petitioner will be chargesheeted for the offence registered against him. After considering the alternative less drastic remedy, in the nature of externment proceedings under section 57(C) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the authority concluded that it is not possible to resort to that remedy and because it is necessary to immediately prevent the petitioner from pursuing his illegal activities which has disturbed public order and public security. Detention under PASA is therefore necessary.
(3.) The petitioner challenges the detention on various grounds: