IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6178 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.C.SRIVASTAVA sd/- ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @@ @ @@ @@ @@ @@ 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? No 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No -------------------------------------------------------------- BHARATKUMAR KHUSHALDAS SOMAIYA Versus MR. HIRALAL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR AR THACKER for Petitioner Mr.N.D.Gohil, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1, 2, 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.C.SRIVASTAVA Date of decision: 11/02/99 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is that despite the fact that his activities were not prejudicial for maintenance of public order he had been preventively detained under order dated 8.7.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City. He has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid order and has also prayed for immediate release from illegal detention. 2. Upon consideration of the grounds of detention and the Affidavit and Counter Affidavit it is clear that the petitioner is a bootlegger inasmuch as he is engaged in liquor business which is considered to be bootlegging activities within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Anti-social Activity Act (for short 'PASA'). However, registration of the two cases under the Bombay prohibition Act did not furnish material, what to say, of sufficient material to the detaining Authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's activities on those two occasions were prejudicial for maintenance of public order. 3. The statements of two confidential witnesses, proceeded on similar lines like narration of parrot like story that on one occasion the witness was beaten because the petitioner suspected him to be police informer and on the other occasion the witness was beaten because he refused to keep stock of liquor, offered by the petitioner, in his house. Thus the two activities can hardly be said to be prejudicial for maintenance of public order inasmuch as these activities cannot be said to have disturbed even tempo of the life of any sections of the society or members of the community or locality in which these incidents took place. On such insufficient material the detaining Authority was hardly justified in arriving at subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial for maintenance of public order. If this ingredient was not satisfied the impugned order of detention is automatically rendered illegal and invalid and the same requires to be quashed. 4. The result, therefore, is that the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 8th July 1998 is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless he is wanted in some other case. sd/- Date : February 11, 1999 ( D. C. Srivastava, J. ) *sas*