Allowed

Sardarkhan Mubarkkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC24 Dec 2012SCA/14578/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order passed against the petitioner under the Gujarat Preservation of Anti-Social Activities Act. The Court held that the detaining authority lacked adequate grounds and sufficient material to conclude that the petitioner's activities threatened public order, merely mislabeling law and order issues as public order disruptions.

What did the court decide?

The imupgned order of detention dated 12/10/2012 was quashed and set aside. The petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless detained for another case.

Sardarkhan Mubarkkhan Pathan Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

C/SCA/14578/2012 JUDGEMNT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14578 of 2012

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HO	NOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI sd/-
=== 1	========================================================== Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	=== No
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
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 ?	No
5	Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?	No

¶6

================================================================ SARDARKHAN MUBARKKHAN PATHAN....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Appearance:

¶11

MR M R MOLAVI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.

¶12

MR JANAK RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent No.3.

¶13

RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent Nos.1 – 2.

¶14

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

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

¶16

Date : 24/12/2012

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

By filing present petition under Article 226 of the

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

C/SCA/14578/2012 JUDGEMNT

¶21

Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order of detention dated 12/10/2012 passed against the detenue by the respondent No.2 herein – District Magistrate, Tapi, in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “PASA Act”). The detenue is branded as “dangerous person”.

¶22

Heard learned advocate Mr.Molavi, for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Janak Raval for the respondent No.3.

¶23

The detenue came to be detained as “dangerous person” on his involvement in the offences being (i) CR No. 149 of 2011 registered before Vyara Police Station; (ii) CR No.171 of 2011 registered before Vyara Police Station; (iii) CR No.78 of 2012 registered before Vyara Police Station and (iv) CR No.7 of 2000 registered before Mahuva Police Station respectively.

¶24

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made against the detenue are not correct; that the material collected by the detaining authority and looking to the statement recorded by the detaining authority, it cannot be said that the alleged activities of the petitioner would fall within the purview of “dangerous person”

¶25

I have gone through the grounds of detention and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.G.P.

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

C/SCA/14578/2012 JUDGEMNT

¶28

The Court is of the opinion that there is much substance in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner. The detaining authority has placed reliance on the aforesaid registered offences and statements of witnesses. After recording the subjective satisfaction about the detenue being a dangerous person and with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the impugned order of detention was passed by the detaining Authority.

¶29

Except the general statement, there is no material on record which shows that the detenue is acting in such a manner which is dangerous to the public order. There are number of decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court on the point of relying on this point. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPUR v/s. V. LAXMANAN, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 663; (ii) AMANULLA KHAN KUDEATALLA KHAN PATHAN v/s. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2197; and (iii) MUSTAKMIYA JABBARMIYA SHAIKH v/s. M.M. MEHTA, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 237 the Court is of the opinion that the activities of the detenue cannot be said to be dangerous to the maintenance of pubic order. In the case of ASHOKBHAI JIVRAJ @ JIVABHAI SOLANKI v/s. POLICE COMMISSIONER, Surat, reported in 2001 (1) GLH 393, having considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v/s. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 740, this Court held that the cases wherein the detention order are passed on the basis of the

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

C/SCA/14578/2012 JUDGEMNT

¶32

statements of such witness fall under the maintenance of “law and order” and not “public Order”.

¶33

Applying the ratio of the above decisions, it is clear that before passing an order of detention, the detaining authority must come to a definite findings that there is threat to the 'public order' and it is very clear that the present case would not fall within the category of threat to a public order. In that view of the matter, when the order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority without having adequate grounds for passing the said order, cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶34

In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 12/10/2012 passed by respondent No.2 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.

¶35

Direct service is permitted.

¶36

*dipti

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Sardarkhan Mubarkkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardarkhan Mubarkkhan Pathan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gehrilal Udaji Khatik Thro Newphew Mukeshbhai Pyarelal Vs State of Gujarat Thro Dy.Secretary

Dayaram Nanubhai Virval Thro Brother Mahesh Nanubhai Virval Vs State of Gujarat Thro Dy.Secretary

Iqbalhussein @ Bhaiya Ahmedhussein Qureshi Vs State of Gujarat

Mirjid Akbarbhai @ Hakubha Khiyani Vs State of Gujarat

Ejaj Akbarbhai @ Hakubha Khi Yani Vs State of Gujarat

Shyam @ Dinesh S/O Shreepal Arjunsig Rajput (Lodhi) Vs State of Gujarat