Allowed

Ikbalbhai Ismailbhai Mirza @ Patel v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC9 Aug 2005SCA/9386/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat quashed an order of preventive detention passed against a petitioner branded an 'immoral traffic offender' under the Gujarat PASA Act. The Court held that a solitary offence did not satisfy the statutory requirement of habituality, thus failing to justify detention under the Act, and ordered the petitioner's release.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 02.05.2005 is quashed and set aside. Detenu Ikbalbhai Ismailbhai Mirza @ Patel is set at liberty forthwith and rule is made absolute.

Ikbalbhai Ismailbhai Mirza @ Patel Vs State of Gujarat — Gujarat HC (2005) — LawSathi Research

¶1

JUDGMENT

¶2

SCA/9386/2005

¶3

1/5

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9386 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 ?

¶12

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 ?

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

IKBALBHAI ISMAILBHAI MIRZA @ PATEL - Petitioner(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)

¶18

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

¶19

Appearance :

¶20

MR AR SHAIKH for Petitioner No(s).: 1. Mr.P.D.Bhate, AGP for Respondent No(s).: 1, 2,3.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Date : 09/08/2005

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

By filing this petition, the petitioner detenu

¶26

has challenged the detention order dated

¶27

SCA/9386/2005

¶28

2/5JUDGMENT

¶29

02.05.2005 passed by the Police Commissioner,

¶30

Ahmedabad 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 “immoral traffic offender” and is required
to be detained under the preventive detention,
so that, he may not continue with such type of
illegal activities.

¶31

2.Along with the detention order, the detenu was
also served with the grounds of detention of the

¶32

same date. In the said grounds, there is a
reference to one criminal case which is filed
under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

¶33

3.Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the

¶34

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 merely
because the petitioner is branded as “immoral
traffic offender” he cannot be preventively
detained under the Act unless his activities as

¶35

SCA/9386/2005

¶36

3/5JUDGMENT

¶37

immoral traffic offender affect adversely or is
likely to affect the maintenance of public
order. It is submitted that solitary offence,
being II CR No. 3010 of 2005 has been
registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad
City under Sections, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act on 09.04.2005
and, therefore, the impugned detention order is
required to be quashed and set aside.

¶38

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

¶39

5.Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

¶40

detenu has raised manifold contentions at the
time of hearing. The first contention raised by
the learned advocate appearing for the

¶41

petitioner that only one incident is registered
against the petitioner under the provisions of
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and on that

¶42

basis the detention order has been passed. In
support of her contention, she has relied upon
the decision of this Court (Coram :J.R.Vora,J)

¶43

SCA/9386/2005

¶44

4/5

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

in Special Civil Application No.3881 of 2005 and
has submitted that one registered offence under

¶47

the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act obviously

¶48

cannot be said to be habitual in nature and
repetitive tendency of human conduct to commit
the same act in this respect. 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

¶49

is not helpful to curb such activities of any
person, then certainly, the detaining authority

¶50

is justified in passing the detention order. In

¶51

the present case, the petitioner is branded as
“immoral traffic offender” within the meaning of

¶52

Section 2(g) of the PASA Act. Section 2(g) of

¶53

the PASA Act provides that a person who

¶54

habitually commits or bets the commission of any
offence under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic
in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (104 of 1956). The

¶55

plain reading of Section 2(g) of the PASA Act
makes it clear that the detaining authority is

¶56

required to arrive at the subjective

¶57

SCA/9386/2005

¶58

5/5

¶59

JUDGMENT

¶60

satisfaction that the petitioner was habitually
committing or abetting the commission of offence

¶61

under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in
Women and Girls Act, 1956 which stands repealed

¶62

vide Section 25 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956. In this view of the
matter, from registration of solitary offence
against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be
branded as habitually committing offence under
the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances
of the case as well as the judgment referred to
above, the impugned detention order is required
to be quashed and set aside.

¶63

6.In view of what is stated above, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 02.05.2005

¶64

is quashed and set aside. The detenu Ikbalbhai
Ismailbhai Mirza @ Patel 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.

¶65

( SHARAD D DAVE, J )

¶66

pathan

Ikbalbhai Ismailbhai Mirza @ Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikbalbhai Ismailbhai Mirza @ Patel v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnubhai Baburao Marathi Thro.Wife - Ashaben v Marathi Vs State of Gujarat

Pinky,W/O.Upendrabhai Narendrabhai Kodekar Chhara Vs State of Guajrat Thr' Secretary

Sanjay Udalsingh Bhadoriya Vs State of Gujarat Thr' Jt.Secretary

Girish H. Trivedi Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kashambhai Usmanbhai Rathod Vs the State of Gujrat

Nayanaben W/O.Rajesh Pranjivan Rana Vs State of Gujarat Thr' Dy.Secretary