[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO[CASE NUMBER] 15820 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR[CASE NUMBER]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: MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No[CASE NUMBER] 1 MR [ENTITY], ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No[CASE NUMBER] 1 , 3 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No[CASE NUMBER] 1 - 2 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR[CASE NUMBER]JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 10/12/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 04[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]2014 passed by respondent No[CASE NUMBER]2The [ENTITY],inexerciseofpowersconferredunderSection3(1)ofthe [ACT][CASE NUMBER]Alongwiththeorderofdetention,thedetenueisalso servedwiththegroundsofdetention[CASE NUMBER]Inthegroundsofdetention,there isareferencetothecriminalcases,registeredatC[CASE NUMBER]R[CASE NUMBER]No[CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] with Kishanvadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections66B,65AE,116B,81and108oftheBombayProhibitionAct[CASE NUMBER]
2 Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY], learned Advocate for the detenue submits that registration ofFIRitselfcannotleadtodisturbanceofeventempoof public life and therefore the public order[CASE NUMBER] The order of detention is assailedbythedetenueonvariousgroundsmentionedinthememoof the petition[CASE NUMBER] However, learned counsel for the detenue submits that, exceptFIRregisteredundertheBombayProhibitionAct,therewasno other material before the detaining authority whereby it could be inferredreasonablythatthedetenueisa'bootlegger'withinthemeaning ofSection2(b)oftheActandrequiredtobedetainedasthedetenue's activitiesareprejudicialtothemaintenanceofpublichealthandpublic order[CASE NUMBER] In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenuehasplacedrelianceonjudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecase ofPiyushKantilalMehtavs[CASE NUMBER]Commissionerofpolice,AIR1989SC491 and the recent judgment dated 28[CASE NUMBER]3[CASE NUMBER]2011 passed by the Division BenchofthisCourt[Coram:S[CASE NUMBER]J[CASE NUMBER]MukhopadhayaC[CASE NUMBER]J[CASE NUMBER][asHisLordship [ENTITY],J][CASE NUMBER]]inLettersPatentAppealNo2732of 2010 in [CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT]
3 Mr[CASE NUMBER][ENTITY],learnedAGP,wouldsubmitthatregistration ofFIRwouldgotoshowthatthedetenuehad,infact,indulgedinto [CASE NUMBER] suchactivities,whichcanbesaidtobedisturbingthepublichealthand public order and in view of sufficient material before the detaining authoritytopasstheorderofdetention,nointerferenceiscalledforby thisCourtinexerciseofitspowerunderArticle226oftheConstitution ofIndia[CASE NUMBER]
4 Havingheardtherivalsubmissionsofthepartiesandperusedthe record of the case, I am of the view that FIR registered under the BombayProhibitionActcannotbesaidtobesufficientenoughtoarrive atsubjectivesatisfactiontotheeffectthattheactivities,asalleged,are prejudicial tothepublicorderorleadtodisturbanceofpublicorder[CASE NUMBER] Therehastobenexusandlinkforsuchactivitieswithdisturbanceofthe publicorder[CASE NUMBER]Oncarefulperusalofthematerialavailableonrecordand theratiolaiddownbytheApexCourtinthecaseof PiyushKantilal Mehta (supra) andtherecentjudgmentdated28[CASE NUMBER]3[CASE NUMBER]2011passedby theDivisionBenchofthisCourt[Coram:[ENTITY] HisLordshipthenwas)&J[CASE NUMBER]B[CASE NUMBER]Pardiwala,J][CASE NUMBER]]inLettersPatentAppeal No2732 of 2010 in [CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT], I am of the view that the activitiesofthedetenuecannotbesaidtobeinanymannerprejudicial tothepublicorderandtherefore,theorderofdetentionpassedbythe detainingauthoritycannotbesustainedandisrequiredtobequashed andsetaside[CASE NUMBER]
5 Intheresult,thisSpecialCivilApplicationisallowed[CASE NUMBER]Theorderof detention dated 04[CASE NUMBER]09[CASE NUMBER]2014 passed by respondent No[CASE NUMBER]2 is hereby quashed and set aside[CASE NUMBER] The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwithifthe detenueisnotrequiredinconnectionwithanyother case[CASE NUMBER] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent[CASE NUMBER] Direct service is permitted[CASE NUMBER]
[CASE NUMBER] ([ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]) chandresh