Quashed

Sahdevsinh @ Shatidan Manhardan Barhat v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC8 Sept 2014SCA/5618/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special civil application, the Gujarat High Court quashed an order of detention passed under the PASA Act. The court held that an FIR under the Bombay Prohibition Act, without further evidence linking the petitioner's activities to public order disturbances, was insufficient to satisfy the subjective requirements for detention of a bootlegger.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of detention dated 31/03/2014 is quashed and set aside; the petitioner is set at liberty forthwith if not detained for other reasons.

Sahdevsinh @ Shatidan Manhardan Barhat Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/5618/2014 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5618 of 2014

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶10

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 ?

¶11

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶12

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

¶13

SAHDEVSINH @ SHATIDAN MANHARDAN BARHAT....Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondents

¶16

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

¶17

Appearance:

¶18

MR JAYANT P BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.

¶19

MR JEET J BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.

¶20

MR BIPIN BHATT, LD.ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent No.3

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

¶24

Date : 08/09/2014

¶25

ORAL JUDGEMENT

¶26

Page 1 of 5

¶27

C/SCA/5618/2014 JUDGMENT

¶28

[1] This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 31/03/2014 passed by respondent No.2 herein – District Magistrate, Jamnagar, 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 detenue as a “bootlegger” as defined under Section 2(b) 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 to one criminal case pending against the detenue. The case is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

¶29

[2] Mr.Jayant Bhatt, 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 detenue's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public

¶30

Page 2 of 5

¶31

C/SCA/5618/2014 JUDGMENT

¶32

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 Supreme Court 491 and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in Letters Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police ) which would squarely help the detenue.

¶33

[3] Mr.Bipin Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted 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.

¶34

[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 alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to arrive at subjective satisfaction

¶35

Page 3 of 5

¶36

C/SCA/5618/2014 JUDGMENT

¶37

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. & 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 detaining authority cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶38

[5] In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 31/03/2014 passed by the respondent authority, 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.

¶39

Direct service is permitted.

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

C/SCA/5618/2014 JUDGMENT

¶42

[A.J. DESAI, J.]

¶43

*dipti

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Sahdevsinh @ Shatidan Manhardan Barhat v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahdevsinh @ Shatidan Manhardan Barhat 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

Bharatbhai Ashabhai Vaghela Vs State of Gujarat

Vijaybhai Udeysinh Vaghela Vs State of Gujarat

Nimeshbhai @ Jamat Nitinbhai Chaudhry Vs State of Gujarat

Sajid Babubhai Sheikh - (Dhobi) Vs State of Gujarat

Pramod Kamlaprasad Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat

Rohit @ Luli Son of Ashokbhai Datniya Vs Commissioner of Police