Brijeshbhai Sureshbhai Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat

Paresh Upadhyay, J

Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the District Magistrate, Vadodara dated 22.01.2020, ordering preventive detention of the petitioner, in exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.

RULE. Learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent State.

Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent authorities through video conferencing.

Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner is illegally detained. It is further submitted that, though it is not the case of the petitioner that the authorised officer did not have authority to order preventive detention of the petitioner, even if the reasons recorded in the impugned order are accepted on its face value, that itself is no ground to order preventive detention of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has to undergo the legal process for the offences which are alleged against him, however the authorised officer can not further be permitted to deprive the petitioner of his liberty. It is submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the authorised officer has rightly arrived at the satisfaction as required under Section 3(1) of the Act and no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.

Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that though the impugned action can not be said to be without authority of law, the material taken into consideration by the authorised officer while passing the impugned order, the details of which are reflected / annexed with the impugned order, could not be said to be sufficient, and / or have any nexus, for arriving at the satisfaction as required under Section 3 (1) of the Act that, had the petitioner not been detained, it would have been prejudicial to the maintenance of 'Public Order'. It is settled position of law that 'Public Order' and 'Law and Order' are not synonyms. The impugned order therefore needs to be interfered with. While recording this, this Court has also taken into consideration the period for which the petitioner has remained in jail by this time. Considering the totality, this Court finds that the impugned order can not be permitted to hold the field any further. The same needs to be quashed and set aside.

For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed.

7.1 This petition is allowed.

7.2 The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

7.3 The petitioner - detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

7.4 Rule is made absolute in above terms.

7.5 Registry shall communicate this order to the concerned authorities.