Allowed

Anil Bujwar Jagdish Bujwar Jat v. State of Guajrat Thr' Secretary

Gujarat HC3 Aug 2005SCA/13727/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Civil Application challenged a preventive detention order passed under the Gujarat Prevention Anti-Social Activities Act based on a solitary prohibition offence. The Court quashed the order, citing fatal delay of thirteen days and lack of established prejudice to public order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 08.03.2005 is quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

Anil Bujwar Jagdish Bujwar Jat Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gujarat HC (2005)

¶1

JUDGMENT

¶2

SCA/13727/2005

¶3

1/4

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13727 of 2005

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE

¶8

==============================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶12

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge} ?

¶13

============================================================== ANIL BUJWAR JAGDISH BUJWAR JAT - Petitioner(s) Versus

¶14

STATE OF GUAJRAT THR' SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)

¶15

==============================================================

¶16

Appearance :

¶17

MR AR SHAIKHfor Petitioner No(s).: 1.
RULE SERVED BY DSfor Respondent No(s).: 1.
SERVED BY RPAD - (R) for Respondent No(s).: 2.
Mr.P.D.Bhate, AGP for Respondent No(s).: 3.
==================================================================

¶18

CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE

¶19

Date : 03/08/2005

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

1.By filing this petition, the petitioner detenu
has challenged the detention order dated

¶22

SCA/13727/2005

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

2/4

¶25

08.03.2005 passed by the Police Commissioner,
Vadodara City in exercise of the powers
conferred upon him under sub-section (1) of
Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention Anti-Social
Activities Act, 1985 (“the Act” for short), as,
the “bootlegger” and is required to be detained
under the preventive detention, so that, he may
not continue with such type of illegal
activities.

¶26

2.Along with the detention order, the detenu was also served with the grounds of detention of the same date. In the said grounds, there is a reference to one criminal case which is filed under the Bombay Prohibition Act.

¶27

3.Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner detenu has submitted that the
detaining authority has failed to substantiate
that the alleged anti-social activities of the
petitioner adversely affect or likely to affect
the maintenance of public order and public
health and merely because the petitioner is
branded as “bootlegger” he cannot be
preventively detained under the Act unless his
activities as bootlegger affect adversely or is
likely to affect the maintenance of public order
and public health. It is submitted that solitary
offence of prohibition being III CR No.105 of
2005 has been registered with Karelibaug Police
Station on 02.03.2005 and the order of detention
was passed on 08.03.2005 and hence, there is

¶28

SCA/13727/2005

¶29

3/4

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

unexplained delay of thirteen days in passing
the order of detention which is fatal, and,
therefore, the impugned detention order is
required to be quashed and set aside.

¶32

4.On the other hand, Mr.Bhate, learned AGP has tried to support the impugned detention order passed against the petitioner. Affidavit-inreply is filed on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶33

5.Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner
detenu has raised manifold contentions at the
time of hearing. The first contention raised by
the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner that only one incident is registered
against the petitioner under the provisions of
the Bombay Prohibition Act and on that basis the
detention order has been passed. In support of
his contention, he has relied upon the decision
of this Court reported in 2004(1) GLR 864 and

¶34

has submitted that one registered offence under

¶35

the Bombay Prohibition Act obviously cannot
disturb the peace of public tempo or place of
public order, and, therefore, it cannot be
considered to be prejudicial activities in any
manner. It is required to be noted that if the
solitary incident is really disturbing the
public peace or tempo of the public and having
prejudicial effect in the society, and on such
occasion, if ordinary law is not helpful to curb
such activities of any person, then certainly,
the detaining authority is justified in passing

¶36

SCA/13727/20054/4JUDGMENT

¶37

the detention order. In the present case, the
alleged activities of the petitioner detenu
cannot be said said to be disturbing the public
peace or tempo of the public and having
prejudicial effect in the society, and,
therefore, impugned detention order is required
to be quashed and set aside.

¶38

6.In view of what is stated above, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 08.03.2005 is quashed and set aside. The detenu Anil Bujwar Jagdish Bujwar Jat is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

¶39

pathan

Anil Bujwar Jagdish Bujwar Jat v. State of Guajrat Thr' Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Bujwar Jagdish Bujwar Jat v. State of Guajrat Thr' Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiva Supaiya Mudliyar(Madrasithro Brother Shekar S Mudliyar Vs State of Gurjat

Karan S/O Prabhat Ishwar Mahanto Thro Brother Meghnath Vs Commissioner of Police-Surat City

Varsangbhai Parkhaji Chowdharypatel Vs State of Gujarat

Shaileshsinh @ Shelsinh Narpatsinh Rajput Vs the State of Gujrat

Bhupatbhai Sukhabhai Makwana Vs the State of Gujarat

Pravinaben Alias Pavli Ganpat Thakore Vs Commissioner of Police Vadodara