IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 14957 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================ 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? -------------------------------------------------------------- MUNNIBEN @ JYOTI D/O. KALIDAS SHAKRABHAI CHUNARA (VAGHARI) Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 14957 of 2003 MR RAKESH B SHARMA for Petitioner No. 1 Mr.SS Patel, AGP for Respondent No. 1-3 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 04/12/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad, passed an order on the 20th September 2003 in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ("PASA Act" for short), detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act. 2. The detaining authority took into consideration four prohibition cases registered against the petitioner. The detaining authority considered the activities of the detenu as that of a bootlegger as defined under the PASA Act and observed that the petitioner is required to be immediately prevented from pursuing his activities, which are detrimental to public order. The authority also considered the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedies and came to conclusion that detention under PASA Act is the only remedy that can be resorted to. 3. The petitioner challenges the order of detention on various grounds. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has restricted his arguments to the ground that, so far as the offences are concerned, they relate to bootlegging and there is no disturbance to public order. He submitted that the petition may, therefore, be allowed. 4. Mr. Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has opposed this petition. 5. So far as the offences are concerned, they all relate to prohibition cases and in light of decision recorded by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.223 of 2000 dated the 22nd August, 2000, in absence of any contemporaneous material, the satisfaction recording damage to public health and disturbance to public order cannot be considered as genuine. The satisfaction, therefore, for exercise of powers under the PASA Act for detaining cannot be considered as genuine and cannot be upheld. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 20th September, 2003, passed against the detenu, is hereby quashed. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other matter. Rule is made absolute with no orders as to costs. 8. Direct service is permitted. [ A.L. DAVE, J. ] rmr.