Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA/9360/2008 2/ 4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9360 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? [PRECEDENT] & 2 - Respondent(s) Appearance : MR [ENTITY] for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR DR [ENTITY], AGP for Respondents CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 13/10/2008 [ENTITY]
1. Heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-detenue and learned AGP for the respondents.
2. The petitioner-detenue has preferred this petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting the impugned order of detention dated 26.3.2008 passed by the respondent No.1-Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, whereby in exercise of power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short, 'PASA') the petitioner has been detained as a 'Dangerous person .
3. From the grounds of detention, it appears that eight offences have been registered against the petitioner ? detenue. Out of the eight offences, five cases being [CASE NUMBER] have been registered with Naranpura Police Station and the three offences being [CASE NUMBER] have been registered with Sabarmati Police Station under the provisions of [SECTION] of [ACT] wherein it is alleged that the petitioner is engaged in the illegal activity of theft of Scooters and Motor-cycles. On the basis of the registration of these cases, the detaining authority after recording the subjective satisfaction, has come to the conclusion that the present detenue's aforesaid activities are prejudicial to maintenance of 'public order' and ultimately passed the impugned order of detention against him branding him as a ?SDangerous Person .
4. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner detenue that it is within the knowledge of the authority concerned that the petitioner detenue was already in jail since 13.3.2008 in connection with an offence being registered against him and that his application for bail was rejected by the trial Court. In spite of that, the respondent authority has not served the order of detention to the petitioner in jail and it was served only on 26.3.2008 when he was released. It is submitted by learned advocate that the authority was waiting for the petitioner-detenue to come out of jail for serving the order of detention, which is required to be deprecated.
5. Except few statements of anonymous witnesses, there is no material on record which shows that the petitioner-detenue is carrying on illegal activities of selling country made liquor which is harmful to the health of the public. In the case of [PRECEDENT], having considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], this Court held that the cases wherein the detention orders are passed on the basis of the statements of such witnesses fall under the maintenance of 'Law and Order' and not 'Public Order'.
6. Applying the ratio of the above decisions, it is clear that before passing an order of detention of a detenue, the detaining authority must come to a definite finding that there is threat to the 'Public Order' and it is very clear that the present case would not fall within the category of threat to 'public order'. In that view of the matter, when the order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority without having adequate grounds, for passing the said order, cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 26.3.2008 passed by the detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
([ENTITY], J.) [ENTITY].