[ENTITY]) THROUGH HIS COUSIN Petitioner(s)V/S[ENTITY] C/SCA/12056/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12056 of 2013 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]) THROUGH HIS COUSIN Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 2 Respondent(s) Appearance: MS [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS [ENTITY], ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 17/10/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 07.06.2013 passed by respondent No.2, in exercise of powers conferred under [SECTION]) of the [ACT] (for short the Act ) by detaining the detenu as a bootlegger as defined under [SECTION] of the Act.
Learned advocate for the detenu submits registration of solitary FIR itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and, therefore, the public order. He further submits that, except FIR registered under the [ACT], there was no other material before the detaining authority whereby it could be inferred reasonably that the detenu is a bootlegger within the meaning of [SECTION] of the Act and required to be detained as the detenu s activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenu has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] and the recent judgment dated 28/3/2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : [ENTITY], C.J. & [ENTITY], J.) in [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT]) which would squarely help the detenu.
Learned AGP has filed detailed affidavit in reply.
Learned AGP submitted that registration of FIR would go to show that the detenu had, in fact, indulged into such activities, which can be said to be disturbing the public health and public order and in view of sufficient material before the detaining authority to pass the order of detention, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its power under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of the case, I am of the view that solitary FIR registered under the [ACT] alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to 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 on record and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in above cited cases and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in [CASE NUMBER], I am of the view that the activities of the detenu cannot be said to be in any manner prejudicial to the public order and, therefore, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside.
The petitioner has argued on merits of FIR, referring certain judgments. However, discussion of such facts, prima facie at this stage, is not warranted since it may otherwise prejudice to the trial.
However, since all such orders are quashed on technical ground, the same shall not come in the way of the detaining authority to pass an appropriate order in future.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 07.06.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
([ENTITY], J.) binoy Page of 4