Gujarat High Court
Hardik @Modi Narendrabhai Shukla vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 16 September, 2014
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/SCA/6787/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6787 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
HARDIK @MODI NARENDRABHAI SHUKLA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA AGP for the Respondents
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 16/09/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This petition is directed against the order of detention dated Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/6787/2014 JUDGMENT 16.4.2014 passed by respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short "the PASA Act") by detaining the detenu as a "bootlegger" as defined under Section 3(1) 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 of two criminal cases, registered at Amraiwadi Police Station, being CR No.5212 of 2013 and 5095 of 2014, which are registered under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act.
2 Ms.Vaibhav Vyas, 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 to be detained as the detenu'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 Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of police, AIR 1989 SC 491 and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J.[as His Lordship then was] & J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in Letters Patent Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/6787/2014 JUDGMENT Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police) which would squarely help the detenue.
3 Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP, would submit that registration of FIR would go to show that the detenue had, in fact, indulged 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 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 dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. (as His Lordship then was) & 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 public order and therefore, the order of detention passed by the Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/6787/2014 JUDGMENT detaining authority cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside.
5 In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of detention dated 16.4.2014 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if the detenue is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) pnnair Page 4 of 4