IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 11254 of 2001 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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- PIRUMAHMAD ISMAILBHAI SAIN RAIJADA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 11254 of 2001 MR NK MAJMUDAR for Petitioner No. 1 MR S.S.PATEL, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents No. 1-2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Date of decision: 30/01/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT The petitioner came to be detained by virtue of an order dated 14th Sept. 2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Banaskantha at Palanpur in exercise of power under Section 3 of the PASA Act. The petitioner seeks to challenge the said order by this petition under Article 226 of the of Constitution of India. 2. The grounds of detention indicate that the petitioner has been branded as a bootlegger. The detaining authority has considered one offence registered against the petitioner with Palanpur Police Station. No other offence is registered against the detenu and there are no statements or any other material to indicate involvement of the detenu in boot-legging. The detaining authority recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner is required to be immediately prevented from pursuing his illegal activities which are detrimental to public health and public order and resorting to less drastic remedy under ordinary law is not possible as immediate prevention is necessary and therefore, passed the order in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the PASA Act. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar appearing for the petitioner submitted that only one case is registered against him, which is considered by the detaining authority; there is total absence of any material to indicate that the petitioner is regularly dealing in liquor in different parts of the State and that he is a known bootlegger and therefore, the satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is without basis and would therefore vitiate and the order may there be quashed. 4. Learned AGP Mr. S.S.Patel has opposed to this petition. 5. Having regard to the contention raised before this Court, it is amply clear and undisputed that there is no material except the registered offence under Bombay Prohibition Act against the detenu to indicate that he is trading in liquor at different places repeatedly and that he is a known bootlegger. The order is passed on the basis of the satisfaction recorded by the authority in the grounds of detention that the detenu is regularly supplying liquor at different places in Gujarat and has become known as a bootlegger and that he is therefore required to be detained under PASA in order to prevent him from pursuing his activities. This satisfaction is without any basis. The order therefore would stand vitiated. 6. The petition is therefore, allowed. Order of detention dated 14.9.2001 passed by the respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Detenu Pirmahmad Ismailbhai Sai (Rajada) be released from detention forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule made absolute. No costs. Direct service permitted. (A.L.Dave,J.) */Mohandas