SCA/23170/2005 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23170 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA ============================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -No. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ============================================================== RAMU @ RAMJI @ RAJU NATHULAL PATEL - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUAJRAT & 4 - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MR G RAMAKRISHNAN for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3, 5, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 4, ===================================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA Date : 16/12/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.Ramu @ Ramji @ Raju Nathulal Patel, petitioner-detenu has filed this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 SCA/23170/2005 2/8 JUDGMENT of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 23/8/2005 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad. Petition was filed on 25/11/2005. On 2/12/2005, this Court (Coram:K.M.Mehta, J.) has issued rule which is returnable on 16/12/2005. Hence, matter has been placed for final hearing to this Court. 2.Mr.G.Ramkrishnan, learned advocate for the petitioner- detenu has invited my attention to the fact that petitioner is a canteen boy, aged 20 years and detention order has been passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City on 23/8/2005 under the provisions of PASA Act. The learned counsel has further submitted that order of committal was also passed on 23/8/2005 and he was sent to Bharuch Jail on the same day. The learned counsel has invited my attention to the grounds furnished by the detaining authority to the petitioner on the same day i.e. 23/8/2005. The learned counsel has submitted that if one peruse the grounds of detention, then it revels the following facts: 1. Petitioner-detenu has committed offence under SCA/23170/2005 3/8 JUDGMENT jurisdiction of Khadia Police Station in connection with Criminal Case No.40 of 2005 dated 18/5/2004 under the provisions of Section 454, 457, 380 and 114 of IPC by which he has committed damage of Rs.2,75,000/- for which investigation is going on. 2. Petitioner-detenu has committed offence under jurisdiction of Satellite Police Station in connection with Criminal Case No.587 of 2005 dated 28/7/2005 under the provisions of Section 379 of IPC by which he has committed theft of Bajaj Pulser Motor Cycle valued at Rs.35,000/- for which investigation is going on. 3. Petitioner-detenu has committed offence under jurisdiction of Ellis bridge Police Station in connection with Criminal Case No.524 of 2005 dated 2/8/2005 under the provisions of Section 397 of IPC by which he has committed theft of Hero Honda Splender Motor Cycle valued at Rs.25,000/- for which investigation is going on. 4. Petitioner-detenu has committed offence under jurisdiction of Satellite Police Station in connection with Criminal Case No.604 of 2005 dated 3/8/2005 under SCA/23170/2005 4/8 JUDGMENT the provisions of Section 397 and 114 of IPC by which he has committed theft of Hero Honda Splender Motor Cycle valued at Rs.35,000/- for which investigation is going on. 3.It was further alleged that petitioner is carrying anti social activities and therefore he is falling within the meaning of 'dangerous person' under the provisions of PASA Act and therefore, the authority has passed detention order and detained the petitioner detenu under the provisions of the PASA Act. 4.On behalf of the petitioner, the learned advocate for the petitioner stated that on the basis of allegations which has been made in the grounds of detention, the authority could not have passed the detention order as there are ordinary offences committed under the provisions of IPC and therefore there is a breach of law and order situation but not public order. Therefore, subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority on the basis of some grounds is not valid and proper. For the same, the learned advocate has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M.Mehta, Commissioner of Police and ors., SCA/23170/2005 5/8 JUDGMENT reported in 1995 (2) GLR 1268. 5.On behalf of respondent, Mr.L.R.Pujari, learned APP appears. He has tried to support the order of detention on the basis of grounds stated in the order of detention. The authority has not filed affidavit in reply in this behalf. 6.I have considered relevant materials in this behalf. In this case, there is no link between the offence committed by the petitioner-detenu towards the breach of the PASA Act. The authority has failed to exercise the jurisdictional powers. There may be only breach of law and order but not public order. In that connection, the learned advocate for the petitioner- detenu has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta, judgment and order dated 22/8/2000 of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram:M.R.Calla and R.R.Tripathi, J.J.) in L.P.A. No.223 of 2000 in S.C.A. No.554 of 2000 and judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram:C.K.Thakkar, Acting C.J. and K.M.Mehta, J.) in the case of Ashokbhai Jivrajbhai v. Police Commissioner, reported in 2000 (1) GLR 816. SCA/23170/2005 6/8 JUDGMENT 7.Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, in my considered view, the detaining authority has passed the order of detention without there being any credible and cogent material in this behalf. Contentions of the petitioner are squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra) and Division Bench Judgment of this Court (Coram:M.R.Calla and R.R.Tripathi, J.J.) in the case of Ashokbhai Balabhai Makwana and another division bench judgment of this Court (C.K.Thakkar, Acting C.J. and K.M.Mehta, J.) in the case of Ashokbhai Jivrajbhai (supra). And therefore, the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. 8.Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the records of the case, I am of the view that only registration of criminal case alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to arrive at the subjective satisfaction to the effect that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the public order. The power to detain a person under the PASA Act is not based on simple facts about registration of crimes. There has to be nexus and link for such activities which disturb SCA/23170/2005 7/8 JUDGMENT the public order. The activities of the detenu must in the backdrop of the facts, reflect that such activities disturbed the even tempo or normal life of the community in the locality or disturbed general peace and tranquility or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality. On careful perusal of the grounds of detention order and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra), judgment and order dated 22/8/2000 of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram:M.R.Calla and R.R.Tripathi, J.J.) in L.P.A. No.223 of 2000 in S.C.A. No.554 of 2000, judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ashokbhai Jivrajbhai (supra) and Special Civil Application No.20420 of 2005 decided by this Court (Coram:K.M.Mehta, J.) on 15/11/2005, in my view, it cannot be said that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the public order. Therefore, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside. 9.I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, judgment of the Hon'ble SCA/23170/2005 8/8 JUDGMENT Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra) and judgment in Letters Patent Appeal (supra) and other judgment cited by the petitioner. Considering all these, I am of the view that the activities of the petitioner may affect law and order situation and not affect the public order and therefore, subjective satisfaction arrived at by the authority is not legal and valid. Therefore, the order of detention passed by the authority is required to be quashed and set aside. 10.In the result, petition is allowed. I hereby quash and set aside the order of detention. Ramu @ Ramji @ Raju Nathulal Patel, detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to cost. Direct service is permitted. (K.M.MEHTA, J.) (ila)