SCA/5968/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5968 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= ARVINDBHAI BATUKBHAI GALORIYA - Petitioner(s) Versus POLICE COMMISSIONER & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Petitioner(s) : 1, MS DARSHANA PANDIT, AGP for Respondents. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 18/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. 2. The petitioner-detenue has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated SCA/5968/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 29.1.2008 passed by the respondent No.1-Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, in exercise of power under sub-section(2) of Section (3) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (“PASA Act” for short) whereby the petitioner has been detained as a “Dangerous Person”. In pursuance of the said impugned order, the petitioner is detained in Nadiad Jail. 3. From the grounds of detention, it appears that two offences being CR Nos.474 of 2007 and 15 of 2008 have been registered against the detenue under the provisions of Sections 394, 384, 385, 504, 114, 448, 170 of IPC at Pradyumnanagar Police Station and Rajkot Taluka Police Station on the ground that the petitioner detenu is involved in theft of motor cycles, mobiles etc. by showing weapons like knife etc. On the basis of registration of these cases, the detaining authority, after recording the subjective satisfaction, has come to the conclusion that the present petenu's aforesaid activities are prejudicial to maintenance of “Public Order” and ultimately passed the impugned order of detention against him branding him as a “Dangerous Person”. 4. Except the statements of some anonymous witnesses, there is no material on record which shows that the petitioner-detenue is carrying on the above illegal activities because of which the public order is disturbed. In the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ SCA/5968/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat [(2001)(1)GLH 393)], having considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 740), this Court held that the cases wherein the detention order passed on the basis of the statements of the witnesses falls under the maintenance of “law and order” and not “public order”. 5. Applying the ratio of the above decisions, it is clear that before passing an order of detention of a detenue, the detaining authority must come to a definite finding that there is threat to the “public order” and it is very clear that the present would not fall within the category of threat to “public order”. In that view of the matter, when the order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority without having adequate grounds for passing the said order, cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 29.1.2008 passed by the detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. (M.D.Shah, J.) SCA/5968/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT Sreeram.