IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2887 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- RAJAN RAMDAS VIRAGI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 2887 of 2004 MR UTPAL M PANCHAL for Petitioner No. 1 MS MITA S PANCHAL AGP for Respondent No. 1-3 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1-2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH Date of decision: 06/05/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT The petitioner above named has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing and setting aside an order of detention dated 07/11/03 passed by respondent no.2 herein, in exercise of the powers u/s.3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, "the said Act"). 2. It was alleged against the petitioner that one F.I.R. was registered against him before Vapi Prohibition Police Station at C.R.No.750/2003 on 17/09/03 for an offence punishable u/s.66, 65 & 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It was also alleged against the petitioner that two witnesses had given statements against the petitioner saying that he was engaged in bootlegging activities. 3. On the strength of the aforesaid registered offence and two statements of unnamed witnesses, the detaining authority found that the petitioner is required to be detained, with a view to prevent him from indulging in bootlegging activities which amounted to a threat to public order, and accordingly, the impugned order of detention was passed against the petitioner. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of his detention, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court. It has been contended here that on a mere fact that one offence was registered, it could not be said that there was a threat to public order. It has also been contended that the names of the witnesses were not disclosed to the petitioner, and therefore, the valuable right of the petitioner to make an effective representation against his detention has been denied. That, therefore, the order of detention is illegal and hence, it may be quashed and set aside. 5. On receipt of the petition, Rule was issued and in response to the service of notice of Rule, Ms.Mita S Panchal learned AGP has appeared on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and have perused the papers. 6. At the final hearing, the learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that the present petitioner was a co-accused with the petitioner in S.C.A.No.2884/2004. He also states that the petitioner in the present petition and the petitioner in the aforesaid S.C.A., both were similarly situated and that both were co-accused in the same registered offence. He also states that the two witnesses who had rendered statements against the petitioner in the aforesaid S.C.A. are the witnesses who have rendered the same set of statements against the present petitioner. That, therefore, the petitioner in the present petition is on par with the petitioner in the aforesaid S.C.A.. It is not much in dispute that the aforesaid S.C.A. was allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 17/04/04. 7. So, when the case of the present petitioner in on par with the case of the petitioner in S.C.A.No.2884/2004 and when the said petition has been allowed and the detention order has been quashed and set aside, then, on the principle of parity, this petition is also required to be allowed and the impugned order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons recorded in S.C.A.No.2884/2004, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 07/11/03 passed by respondent no.2 against the petitioner, is ordered to be quashed and set aside. Detenu, Rajan Ramdas Viragi, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if no longer required in any other case. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service permitted. (D. P. Buch, J.) pravin/