Manoj Parsottambhai Sudra Through Rajniben Manojbhai Sudra vs Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City

A.J.Desai, J

[1] This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 7.12.2019 passed by respondent No.1 herein â€" Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short “the PASA Actâ€) by

detaining the detenue as a “bootlegger†as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Along with the order of detention, the detenue is also served

with the grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention, there is a reference to one criminal case pending against the detenue. The case is

registered under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

[2] Mr. B. H. Solanki, learned advocate for the detenue submits that registration of FIR itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life

and therefore the public order. The order of detention is assailed by the detenue on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. However,

learned counsel for the detenue submits that, except FIR registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, there was no other material before the

detaining authority whereby it could be inferred reasonably that the detenue is a ’ bootlegger ’ within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act

and required t o be detained as the detenue’s activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In support of the above

submission, learned counsel for the detenue has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kant ilal Mehta vs.

Commissioner of police, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 491 and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram:

S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in Letters Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Ci vil Application No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs.

Commissioner of Police ) which would squarely help the detenue.

[3] Ms. Divyangna Jhala, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of FIR would go to show that the detenue had, in fact,

indul ged into such activities, which can be said to be disturbing the public health and public order and in view of sufficient material before the

detaining authority to pass the order of detention, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

[4] Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of the case, I am of the view that FIR registered under the Bombay

Prohibition Act alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to arrive at subjective satisfaction to the effect that the activities, as alleged, are

prejudicial to the public order or lead to disturbance of public order. There has to be nexus and link for such activities with disturbance of the public

order. On careful perusal of the material available on record and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra)

and the recent judgment date 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in Letters

Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police ), I am of the view that the

activities of the detenue cannot be said to be in any manner prejudicial to the pub lic order and therefore, the order of detention passed by the detaining

authority cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside.

[5] In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 7.12.2019 passed by resp ondent No. 1 herein, is hereby quashed and

set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained in connection with any other case. Rule is made

absolute accordingly.

[6] Regi stry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Authority by fax / email message forthwith.