IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 17677 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.G.NANDI ============================================================ 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? -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMESHBHAI MAGANBHAI BHIL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 17677 of 2003 MS KRISHNA U MISHRA for Petitioner No. 1 MR AMRISH K PANDYA for Petitioner No. 1 MS PAURAMI SHETH Ld. AGP for Respondent No. 1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.G.NANDI Date of decision: 26/02/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr.A.K.Pandya for Ms.K.U.Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Paurami Sheth, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been challenging the detention order dated 26.8.2003 (Annexure-A) passed under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act,1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act") by respondent no.2 and prays for quashing and setting aside of the said detention order and setting the petitioner at liberty. 3. The copy of the grounds of detention (Annexure-B) suggests that in Chhani Police Station, Baroda City, 5 cases under Section 379, 447 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the petitioner on different dates in the month of July,2003. The grounds of detention also referred to the statements of two witnesses relating to the incidents which allegedly occurred on 10.7.2003 and 19.7.2003. It is suggested that incident on 10.7.2003 and 19.7.2003 also pertained to alleged criminal offences by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to be a dangerous person. It is submitted by Mr.A.K.Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner that the registered cases under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and also the incident relating to unregistered cases are directed against the individuals and that there is no question of breach of public order since the acts alleged would relate to law and order situation only, and that Section 3(1) of the PASA Act could not have been invoked looking to the cases against the petitioner. 4. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki Vs. Police Commissioner, Surat and Others, 2000 (1) GLR 816. While dealing with Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act,1985, the Division Bench held that, "four cases registered against the detenu under IPC, looking to the incident the cases fall under the maintenance of "Law and Order" and not "Public Order' and therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the Detaining Authority cannot be said to be legal or valid and the order of detention could have been passed on maintenance of "Public Order", detention order quashed". 5. Vide order passed in Special Civil Application No.16395 of 2003, co-detenu - Maheshbhai Mohanbhai Vasava has been set at liberty, quashing and setting aside the detention order passed against him on the same grounds. For the reason of parity also, present petitioner would be required to be set at liberty by setting aside the impugned detention order passed against him by the same authority on the same grounds. 6. In the grounds of detention, same cases registered under the provisions of Section 379, 447 and 114 Indian Penal Code before the Chhani Police Station, Baroda City and same incidents of unregistered cases are referred to against the co-detenu also. 7. In view of the fact that co-detenu - Maheshbhai Mohanbhai Vasava (petitioner in Special Civil Application No.16395 of 2003) having been set at liberty, the present petitioner is also required to be set at liberty by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention against the present petitioner. 8. In the result, the petition is granted and accordingly allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 26.8.2003 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent no.2 against the petitioner -detenu -Rameshbhai Maganbhai Bhil is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (N.G.Nandi,J.) (vipul)