A single judge quashed an order of preventive detention under the PASA Act, holding that an FIR under the Bombay Prohibition Act alone is insufficient to demonstrate prejudice to public order without further material.
Impugned order of detention dated 03/04/2014 quashed and set aside; detenue ordered to be 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/6046/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6046 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
================================================================
===========================================================
PRAMOD KAMLAPRASAD CHAUHAN....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondents
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MS DARSHANA PANCHOLI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner.
MR BIPIN BHATT, LD.ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No.3 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent Nos. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 08/09/2014
ORAL JUDGEMENT
[1] This petition is directed against the order of
Page 1 of 5
C/SCA/6046/2014 JUDGMENT
detention dated 03/04/2014 passed by respondent No.2 herein – Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, 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.
[2] Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, 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
Page 2 of 5
C/SCA/6046/2014 JUDGMENT
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.
[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.
[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
Page 3 of 5
C/SCA/6046/2014 JUDGMENT
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.
[5] In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 03/04/2014 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.
Direct service is permitted.
Page 4 of 5
C/SCA/6046/2014 JUDGMENT
[A.J. DESAI, J.]
*dipti
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether registration of an FIR under the Bombay Prohibition Act alone is sufficient to justify detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act.
Whether the activities alleged against the detenue are prejudicial to public order based solely on the FIR.
Whether the order of detention must be quashed for lack of material nexus with disturbance of public order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of PoliceRelied on¶2
AIR 1989 Supreme Court 491 · Who else cites this
Aartiben vs. Commissioner of PoliceRelied on¶2
Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police, Letters Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010
Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of PoliceRelied on¶4
Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pramod Kamalprasad Chauhan
State of Gujarat
A.J. DESAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
