SCA/6204/2008 1/10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6204 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = BHIKHABHAI ALIAS KAKA DAYABHAI BHOI - Petitioner(s) Versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & 2 - Respondent(s) ======================================= Appearance : MR DHAVAL N VAKIL for Petitioner MR HUKUM SINGH, ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 19/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention SCA/6204/2008 2/10 JUDGMENT dated 9th March, 2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (the PASA Act), ordering that the petitioner to be detained to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order was executed on the same day and since then the petitioner is under detention. The petitioner has made a representation dated 10th April, 2008 to the State Government against the order of detention, and also asked for true copies of the panchnama, a typed copy whereof has already been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that the statement dated 11th February, 2008 recorded in the grounds of detention had been obtained through coercion by the police authority and that he did not accept the same. 2. Pursuant to the filing of the petition, Rule was issued on the petition on 15th April, 2008. However, till date, neither the detaining authority nor the State Government have filed any counter to the petition. 3. The impugned order of detention is challenged on various grounds. However, the main grounds for challenging the said order are that there is no material on record on the basis of which, the detaining authority could have arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and that the documents asked for have not been supplied to the petitioner. SCA/6204/2008 3/10 JUDGMENT 4. On facts, the learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out that a solitary offence under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 has been registered against the petitioner on the basis of a statement made by a co-accused that the stock of liquor which was seized during the course of raid was to be supplied to the petitioner. It is submitted that the entire order of detention is based upon the solitary offence, and that, there is no material on record to point out as to how the activities of the petitioner are in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or public health. 5. The grounds of detention which are annexed to the detention order show that on the date of passing of the detention order, one solitary criminal case registered on 10th February, 2008 is pending against the petitioner under Sections 66[1]B, 65(A)(E) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. 6. A perusal of the order of detention shows that the detaining authority has observed that the petitioner, in his statement made before the police on 11th February, 2008, has stated that he is carrying on the activities of selling liquor since the last twelve months. On the basis of the statement of the petitioner recorded by the police, the detaining authority has observed that unlawful activities carried out by the petitioner have an adverse effect on the children of tender age and respectable people residing in the area. That school going children of tender age as well as respectable persons would get addicted to consuming liquor and thus, putting their lives SCA/6204/2008 4/10 JUDGMENT as well as the lives of their families in danger. Consequently, many families are destroyed mid-ways, which is injurious to the social fabric. Thus, the petitioner by obtaining foreign liquor from other States on a large scale and selling the same in the State of Gujarat and making the same an unlawful means of deriving income is carrying on unlawful activities on a large scale. This liquor is very injurious to the health of mankind; hence, there is a possibility of large-scale injury to life due to which public order is likely to be adversely affected. The detaining authority has thereafter observed that the petitioner has recently been enlarged on bail in connection with the aforesaid offence. That resort to the provisions of Section 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, Section 53 of the Bombay Police Act for externment, Sections 107, 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not sufficient to prevent the petitioner from carrying on his unlawful activities. That on the basis of the offence registered against the petitioner, he is satisfied that the petitioner is a bootlegger who illegally brings foreign liquor in large quantities and stores and sells the same. That in view of the aforesaid facts, the unlawful activities of the petitioner of bringing large quantities of foreign liquor and selling the same falls within the definition of bootlegger as defined under sub- section (b) of Section 2 of the PASA Act. That the illegal activity of the petitioner induces people to consume liquor and leads their family members towards ruin. If the petitioner were permitted to carry on his illegal activities, the same would be likely to result into serious large-scale injury to the maintenance of public health. SCA/6204/2008 5/10 JUDGMENT Thus, due to the petitioner's activities of selling foreign liquor, there is a possibility of large-scale danger to the lives of the citizens. In the event of such a happening, resultantly public order is likely to be affected. Thus, it is possible that the petitioner's activities of selling liquor may become prejudicial to public order. It is on the basis of the aforesaid findings that the order of detention has been made. 7. A perusal of the documents supplied along with the order of detention shows that most of the documents pertain to the statements of the police officers, who had conducted the search. Of three other statements which are annexed with the order of detention, two are the statements of co- accused, who have stated that the stock of liquor seized was meant to be supplied to the petitioner. The third statement is a statement of the petitioner himself recorded by the police. The entire detention order is based upon this statement stated to have been made by the petitioner before the police authorities. There is no independent evidence or material on record so as to substantiate the findings recorded by the detaining authority. Assuming that the statements of the co- accused as well as the statement of the petitioner could be taken into consideration, even then there is no material to justify the findings recorded by the detaining authority that the petitioner was carrying on large scale activities of sale of foreign liquor or that, his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. The entire tenor of the detention order shows that the detaining authority has proceeded on the SCA/6204/2008 6/10 JUDGMENT footing that sale of liquor would adversely affect the lives of children of tender age as well as the respectable persons in the community as they would get addicted to consuming liquor and thereby, destroy families and damage the social fabric. However, there is no supporting material in support of the aforesaid apprehension voiced by the detaining authority. In sum and substance, the sole basis for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order is that a solitary offence has been registered against the petitioner under the Prohibition Act which indicates that the petitioner is a bootlegger as defined under Clause (b) of Section 2 of the PASA Act. 8. It is settled legal position as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and another, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322 that in order that an activity may be said to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, there must be material to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity among the general public. If an act of a person creates panic or fear in the minds of the members of the public upsetting the even tempo of life of the community, such act must be said to have a direct bearing on the question of maintenance of public order. The commission of an offence will not necessarily come within the purview of ‘public order’. On the facts of the said case the petitioner therein was detained on the ground that he was a bootlegger and that some incidents of beating by the petitioner had taken place, as alleged by witnesses. SCA/6204/2008 7/10 JUDGMENT According to the Supreme Court the said incidents did not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. It was further held that: “The petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences committed by him but, surely, such acts constituting the offences cannot be said to have affected the even tempo of life of the community. It may be that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, but merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid down in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act, his activities as bootlegger affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. We have carefully considered the offences alleged against the petitioner in the order of detention and also the allegations made by the witnesses and, in our opinion, these offences or the allegations cannot be said to have created any feeling of insecurity or panic or terror among the members of the public of the area in question giving rise to the question of maintenance of public order. The order of detention cannot, therefore, be upheld.” 9. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 22nd August, 2000 rendered in the case of Ashokbhai Balabhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, Letters Patent Appeal No.223 of 2000, after SCA/6204/2008 8/10 JUDGMENT considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanuji S. Zala v. State of Gujarat, 1999 (2) GLH 415 held that a bald observation that the activities of the petitioner were an obstacle to public health and public order cannot be taken to be decisive so as to arrive at the satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the public order or public health and that tempo of public life was disturbed. The Court further held that the litmus test to find out whether it is a case of breach of public order or breach of public health is that credible material has to be there. In the facts of the said case, apart from the allegation that the petitioner was a bootlegger based on some registered cases, there were some unregistered cases and statements of anonymous witnesses against the petitioner therein. The Court held thus: “Thus, the only material which remains is the registered criminal cases and that by itself cannot be said to be a material for the purpose of holding that the appellant's activities had become a threat to the public order and public health. Necessary material in this regard is totally wanting in the body of the detention order itself. In large number of cases, the Supreme Court has considered that involvement in bootlegging activities even if coupled with violence does not amount to threat to public order or public health. The mere mention of allegations unless they are supported by any material cannot be said to be material germane for the purpose of arriving at the satisfaction with SCA/6204/2008 9/10 JUDGMENT regard to breach of public order or public health.” 10.On the facts of the present case, a perusal of the detention order shows that after giving the particulars of the criminal cases, the detaining authority has simply observed that the petitioner’s activities are likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order without there being any credible material in support thereof. Thus, there is no material on record except for the solitary offence registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. As held by the Supreme Court as well as this Court in the decisions cited hereinabove, mere registration of criminal cases cannot by itself be said to be a material for holding that the petitioner’s activities have become a threat to public order or public health. 11.The decision of this court in case of Salam Abdul Hanifshaibhai Through Wife Hajirabibi Salam vs. (The) District Magistrate and Ors. [2007 (3) G.L.H. Page 131] on which reliance has been placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader does not lend any support to the case of the respondents as in the facts of the said case, it was found that the detaining authority had arrived at the satisfaction that the petitioner therein was a bootlegger and his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as well as about the likelihood of his activities causing widespread danger to the public health by the scale of his operations which were all substantiated by credible and cogent material. SCA/6204/2008 10/10 JUDGMENT In the present case, there is nothing to show that the activities of the petitioner were carried out on a large scale nor is there any credible or cogent material to substantiate the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or public health. In the circumstances, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority being based on no evidence, stands vitiated and as such the order of detention cannot be sustained. 12.For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 09th March, 2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara is hereby quashed and set aside and the detenu – Bhikhabhai alias Kaka Dayabhai Bhoi is hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted. [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*