IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 17328 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH ============================================================ 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- AMARSINH PARBATSINH CHHARA Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 17328 of 2003 MR ANIL S DAVE for Petitioner No. 1 MR KAMEN N SHUKLA for Petitioner No. 1 MS MITA S PANCHAL AGP for Respondent No. 1-3 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 1-2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH Date of decision: 03/05/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT The petitioner above named has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing and setting aside an order of detention dated 28/11/03 passed by respondent no.1 herein, in exercise of the powers u/s.3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, "the said Act"). 2. It was alleged against the petitioner that four first information reports were registered against him before Western Division Prohibition Police Station at C.R.No.322/2003, 423/2003, 1512/2003 and 1883/2003 between 25/02/03 and 25/11/03. 3. On the strength of the aforesaid registered offences, the detaining authority found that the petitioner was required to be detained, with a view to prevent him from indulging in bootlegging activities, which amounted to a threat to public order, and accordingly, the impugned order of detention was passed against the petitioner. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of his detention, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court. It has been contended here that simply because a few prohibition offences have been registered against the petitioner, it could not be said that the activities of the petitiioner would lead to a threat to public order. That, therefore, the order of detention is illegal and hence, it may be quashed and set aside. 5. On receipt of the petition, Rule was issued and in response to the service of notice of Rule, Ms.Mita S Panchal learned AGP has appeared on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and have perused the papers. 6. At the final hearing, the learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that four prohibition offences have been registered against the petitioner, but, it would not amount to a threat to public order and therefore, the petitioner could not have been detained. In support of the said argument, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta V/s. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City reported in A.I.R. 1989 SC 491. Para 18 of the aforesaid decision would be relevant and therefore, it is reproduced for ready reference as follows; Para 18 : "In the instant case, the detaining authority, in our opinion, has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner adversely affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. It is true some incidents of beating by the petitioner had taken place, as alleged by the witnesses. But, such incidents, in our view, do not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. The petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences committed by him but, surely, the acts constituting the offences cannot be said to have affected the even tempo of the life of the community. It may be that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of S.2(b) of the Act, but merely because he is a bottlegger he cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid down in sub-section (4) of S.3 of the Act, his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely 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 given rise to the question of maintenance of public order. The order of detention cannot, therefore, be upheld." 7. On going through the above decision, it is amply clear that the case on hand is not found to be different from the case before the Hon'ble the Apex Court. Therefore, by respectfully following the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision, it is required to be observed in the present case also, that simply because a few prohibition offences have been registered, it could not be said that the petitioner's activity were such as to stage a threat to public order. In that view of the matter, the order of detention cannot be sustained, and therefore, it is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 28/11/03 passed by respondent no.1 against the petitioner, is ordered to be quashed and set aside. Detenu, Amarsinh Parbatsinh Chhara, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if no longer required in any other case. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service permitted. (D. P. Buch, J.) pravin/