AIYUBKHAN GULAMDASTGIR PATHAN Vs. POLICE COMMISSIONER VADODARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order of detention dated 4-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara City under Sec. 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ("the PASA" for short) and has prayed for quashing of the said order and also for his immediate release from illegal detention.

(2.) From the grounds of detention, it seems that because of registration of four cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act against the petitioner and also from the statements of three confidential witnesses that the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is a bootlegger and his activities were prejudicial for maintenance of public order. Alternative remedies were also considered by the detaining authority who found that preventive detention was the only efficacious remedy on the facts and circumstances of the case against the petitioner. Accordingly, impugned order of detention was passed.

(3.) The impugned order of detention has been challenged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the course of arguments on three counts. One of the contentions has been that the impugned order of detention suffers from the vice of non-application of mind by the detaining authority. This contention has no substance. The contention has been that the detaining authority has mechanically mentioned that if the proceedings for cancellation of bail are taken, it would be time consuming and in the mean time, the petitioner would continue his bootlegging activities which in turn would affect the maintenance of public order. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that out of four registered offences against the petitioner, one was registered in the year 1997 and three in the year 1998 and in none of the cases, application for cancellation of bail has been moved till the date of passing of the order of detention. Consequently, it was urged that the observation of the detaining authority that the proceedings for cancellation of bail will be time consuming was nothing but mechanical observation which has rendered the impugned order invalid. The detaining authority has made these observations while considering the alternative remedies. The impugned order of detention was passed on 4-8-1998. It seems that the detaining authority has considered that if on 4-8-1998, or thereafter, proceedings for cancellation of bail are taken up, the same would be time consuming. Consequently, it cannot be said that the detention order suffers from the vice of non- application of mind. If the detaining authority considered alternative efficacious remedies, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot observe that the detaining authority was not justified in considering the alternative remedies. That would actually amount to exercising the appellate jurisdiction which is not conferred on this Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.