IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4923 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES 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 Civil Judge? : NO @ RAKESHBHAI GHANSHYAMBHAI ACHARYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 4923 of 2002 MR CG SHARMA for Petitioner No. 1 MR HH PATEL, AGP for Respondent No. 1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.BUCH Date of decision: 01/07/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner- detenu has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 8.3.2002 passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 3(2) of The Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the PASA Act) the petitioner-detenu. The petitioner has been branded as "dangerous person" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PASA Act. 2. The order of detention has been passed on 8.3.2002 and has been executed on the very same day along with the grounds of detention. On perusal of the papers supplied to the detenu, it transpires that the petitioner was found involved in three criminal offences registered with Salabatpura Police Station of Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 454, 457 of IPC etc. First offence was registered on 12.1.2001 and second offence was registered on 29.6.2001 and the last offence against the petitioner was registered on 17.11.2001. In all the three offences, valuable muddamal was ultimately recovered by the investigating agency. The subsequent statements recorded by the sponsoring authority reveal that two other criminal wrongs of similar nature were committed by the present petitioner. So, stating all these details, detaining authority has recorded subjective satisfaction and exercised under Section 3 of the PASA Act. 3. Ld. counsel Mr. C.G.Sharma for the petitioner has taken me through the memo of the petition. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order on number of grounds. However, ld. counsel has concentrated his arguments on two main points. It is firstly submitted that alleged activities of the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudicial to the "public order" within the meaning of PASA Act. He has been wrongly branded as "dangerous person" and police commissioner ought not to have exercised the powers vested under Section 3 of the PASA Act. It is submitted that for the sake of arguments if it is accepted that the petitioner was involved in all these three offences, even than it can be said to be activities prejudicial to the "law & order" and not the "public order". He has rightly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ahok Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v/s Police Commssioner, Surat & Others, 2000(1) GLH 393. In the cited decision, this Court has referred more than one decision of the Apex Court and ratio propounded in the cited decision would squarely apply to the set of the facts of the present case. 4. The next point argued by ld. counsel Mr. Sharma for the petitioner is that the order of detention passed by the detaining authority has been passed mechanically and, therefore, the same should be quashed and set aside. Ld. counsel Mr.Sharma appearing for the petitioner detenu has submitted that the present case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad ( Vekaria ) v/s State of Gujarat & Others, 2000(3) GLR 2696 (Vol.XLI (3). Ld. Single Judge of this Court, after referring to the decision in the case of Kalidas C.Kahar v/s State of Gujarat, 1993(2) GLR 1659, has held that exercise of powers by the detaining authority was mechanical and devoid of application of mind and, therefore, detention order requires to be quashed. It is submitted that in the present case also, the papers placed before the detaining authority on 7.3.2002 has been dealt with in 24 hours and the order of detention is passed on 8.3.2002. In the cited case also, entire bunch of papers was considered within 24 hours. Statements of unnamed two witnesses were recorded on 18.12.2002 and 18.2.2002 respectively, but ultimately those statements were placed before the detaining authority on 7.3.2002 and on the very next day i.e. on 8.3.2002, the order of detention has been passed. I have considered the above-cited decisions and if relevant dates are considered, I am satisfied that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions as facts of both the cases are similar in nature. It is also submitted that in number of decisions, this Court has consistently quashed and set aside the orders of detention where there is non-application of mind or mechanical application of mind. Under the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the other grounds, impugned order of detention requires to be quashed and set aside on this ground also. relevant grounds raised in the petition. It is, therefore, held that impugned order of detention is bad-in-law and suffer from non-application of mind. 5. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed. Impugned order of detention dated 8.3.2002 passed by the Commissioner of police, Surat City is hereby quashed and set aside and detenu is hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other case. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted. 1.7..2002 [ C. K.BUCH, J] *rawal