[CASE NUMBER] IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6862 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: MR HR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR [ENTITY] GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 3 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 17/09/2014 [ENTITY]
1.0 This petition is directed against the order of detention dated [CASE NUMBER] 16.04.2014passedbyrespondentNo.2-[ENTITY] in exercise of powers conferred under [SECTION] of the [ACT]) bydetaining thedetenue asa"bootlegger" asdefined underSection 2(b)oftheAct.Alongwiththeorderofdetention,thedetenueisalso servedwiththegroundsofdetention.Inthegroundsofdetention,there isareferencetothreecriminalcasespendingagainstthedetenue.The cases are registered under the provisions of the [ACT].
2.0 Mr. [ENTITY], learned advocate for the detenue submits that registration ofFIRitselfcannotleadtodisturbance ofeventempo of public life and therefore the public order. The order of detention is assailedbythedetenueonvariousgroundsmentionedinthememoof thepetition.However,learnedadvocate forthedetenuesubmitsthat, exceptFIRregisteredundertheBombayProhibitionAct,therewasno othermaterialbeforethedetainingauthoritywherebyitcouldbeinferred 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],learnedAssistantGovernmentPleadersubmitted thatregistrationofFIRwouldgotoshowthatthedetenuehad,infact, indulged into such activities, which can be said to be disturbing the publichealthandpublicorderandinviewofsufficientmaterialbefore thedetainingauthoritytopasstheorderofdetention,nointerferenceis calledforbythisCourtinexerciseofitspowerunderArticle226ofthe [ACT]
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 impugnedorderofdetentiondated16.04.2014passedbyrespondent [CASE NUMBER] No.2[ENTITY]isherebyquashedandsetaside. Thedetenueisorderedtobesetatlibertyforthwithifheisnotrequired tobedetainedinconnectionwithanyothercase.Ruleismadeabsolute accordingly.Directserviceispermitted.
([ENTITY], J.) niru*