[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14408 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] 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 [ACT] or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? [ENTITY] Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 2 Respondent(s) Appearance: MS [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY] ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 3 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 18/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT
[CASE NUMBER] 1.0 This petition is directed against the order of detention dated
19.09.2014passedbyrespondentNo.2-[ENTITY] bydetaining thedetenue asa"bootlegger" asdefined underSection 2(b)oftheAct.Alongwiththeorderofdetention,thedetenueisalso servedwiththegroundsofdetention.Inthegroundsofdetention,there isareferencetoonecriminalcasependingagainstthedetenue.The caseisregisteredundertheprovisionsoftheBombayProhibitionAct. 2.0 LearnedadvocateforthedetenuesubmitsthatregistrationofFIR itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and therefore the public order. The order of detention is assailed by the detenue on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. However,learnedadvocate forthedetenuesubmitsthat,exceptFIR registered under the [ACT], there was no other material before the detaining authority whereby it could be inferred reasonably that the detenue is a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section2(b)oftheActandrequired tobedetained asthedetenue's [CASE NUMBER] activitiesareprejudicialtothemaintenanceofpublichealthandpublic order. In support of the above submission, learned advocate for the detenuehasplacedrelianceonjudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecase of [PRECEDENT] bytheDivisionBenchofthisCourt[Coram:[ENTITY]& [ENTITY], J].] in [CASE NUMBER] in [PRECEDENT] 3.0 Mr. [ENTITY], learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted thatregistration ofFIRwouldgotoshowthatthedetenue had, in fact, indulged into such activities, which can be said to be disturbing thepublic health and public order andinviewofsufficient materialbeforethedetainingauthoritytopasstheorderofdetention,no interference iscalled forbythisCourt inexerciseofitspower under Article226oftheConstitutionofIndia.
4.0 Havingheardtherivalsubmissionsofthepartiesandperusedthe [CASE NUMBER]
record of the case, I am of the view that FIR registered under the BombayProhibitionActalonecannotbesaidtobesufficientenoughto arrive at subjective satisfaction to the effect that the activities, as alleged, are prejudicial to the public order or lead to disturbance of public order. There has to be nexus and link for such activities with disturbance of the public order. On careful perusal of the material available onrecordandtheratiolaiddownbytheApexCourtinthe caseofPiyushKantilalMehta(supra)andtherecentjudgmentdated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: [ENTITY] C.J. & [ENTITY], J].] in [CASE NUMBER] in [PRECEDENT], I am of the view that the activitiesofthedetenuecannotbesaidtobeinanymannerprejudicial tothepublicorderandtherefore,theorderofdetentionpassedbythe detainingauthoritycannotbesustainedandisrequiredtobequashed andsetaside.
5.0 In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugnedorderofdetentiondated19.09.2014passedbyrespondent [CASE NUMBER] No.2TheCommissionerofPolice,Rajkotisherebyquashedandset aside.Thedetenueisorderedtobesetatlibertyforthwithifheisnot requiredtobedetainedinconnectionwithanyothercase.Ruleismade absoluteaccordingly.Directserviceispermitted.
([ENTITY], J.) niru*