Petitioner challenged order of detention under PASA Act. Court held detaining authority failed to show petitioner was a dangerous person threatening public order. Petitioner released.
Detention order dated 12/10/2012 quashed and set aside; petitioner set at liberty forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/14903/2012 JUDGEMNT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14903 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
| === 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 |
================================================================ EJAJ AKBARBHAI @ HAKUBHA KHI YANI....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MS KRISHNA U MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MR JANAK RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent No.3.
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent Nos. 1 – 2.
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 24/12/2012
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/14903/2012 JUDGEMNT
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 – the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, 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”.
Heard learned advocate Ms.Krishna Mishra, for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Janak Raval for the respondent No.3.
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/14903/2012 JUDGEMNT
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/14903/2012 JUDGEMNT
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 statements of such witness fall under the maintenance of “law and order” and not “public Order”.
Direct service is permitted.
[A.J.DESAI, J.]
*dipti
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the detaining authority had sufficient grounds to classify the petitioner as a dangerous person threatening public order under the PASA Act.
Whether reliance on witness statements regarding past offences constitutes a threat to public order sufficient for preventive detention.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
District Collector, Ananthapur v/s. V. LaxmananExplained¶31
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPUR v/s. V. LAXMANAN, (2005) 3 SCC 663 · Who else cites this
Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan v/s. State of GujaratExplained¶31
AMANULLA KHAN KUDEATALLA KHAN PATHAN v/s. STATE OF GUJARAT, AIR 1999 SC 2197 · Who else cites this
Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Sheikh v/s. M.M. MehtaExplained¶31
MUSTAKMIYA JABBARMIYA SHAIKH v/s. M.M. MEHTA, (1995) 3 SCC 237 · Who else cites this
Ashokbhai Jivrakar v/s. Police Commissioner, SuratExplained¶31
ASHOKBHAI JIVRAJ @ JIVABHAI SOLANKI v/s. POLICE COMMISSIONER, Surat, 2001 (1) GLH 393
Ram Manohar Lohia v/s. State of BiharExplained¶31
Ram Manohar Lohia v/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
EJAJ AKBARBHAI @ HAKUBHA KHI YANI
STATE OF GUJARAT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, RAJKOT CITY
A.J. DESAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
