[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13894 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] WD/O VADILAL NENABHAI Petitioner(s) Versus [ENTITY] & 2 Respondent(s) Appearance: MS [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 [ENTITY], AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 05/11/2014 [ENTITY]
[CASE NUMBER] [1] This petition is directed against the order of
detention dated 25/06/2014 passed by respondent No.2 herein
- Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, in exercise of powers conferred under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (in short "the [ACT]") by detaining the detenue as a "bootlegger" as defined under [SECTION] of the Act. Along with the order of detention, the detenue is also served with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, there are reference of two criminal cases pending against the detenue. The cases are registered under the provisions of the [ACT]. [2] Ms.[ENTITY], learned advocate for the detenue submits that registration of FIR 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, learned counsel for the detenue 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 detenue is a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of [SECTION] of the Act and required to be detained as the detenue's activities are [CASE NUMBER] prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenue has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of [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 [PRECEDENT]) which would squarely help the detenue.
[3] Ms.[ENTITY], learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of FIR would go to show that the detenue 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]. [4] Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of the case, I am of the view that FIR registered under the [ACT] alone cannot be [CASE NUMBER] 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 the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra) 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 [PRECEDENT]), I am of the view that the activities of the detenue 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.
[5] In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 25/06/2014 passed by respondent No.2 herein, is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[CASE NUMBER] Direct service is permitted. ([ENTITY], J.) ANKIT