Allowed

Gajanand @ Pandit Son of Trijuginarayan Tivari v. Commissioner of Police

Gujarat HC9 Sept 2014SCA/6226/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special civil application challenging an order of detention, the High Court held that seven offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act were insufficient to establish that the detenu was a bootlegger prejudicial to public order. Consequently, the detention order was quashed and the petitioner was set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention dated 05.04.2014 is quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.

Gajanand @ Pandit Son of Trijuginarayan… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gujarat HC (2014)

¶1

C/SCA/6226/2014 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6226 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

GAJANAND @ PANDIT SON OF TRIJUGINARAYAN TIVARI Versus

¶14

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & 2

¶15

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

¶16

Appearance:

¶17

MR CHETAN B RAVAL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner MS AMITA SHAH AGP for the Respondents

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI

¶20

Date : 09/09/2014

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Page 1 of 4

¶23

C/SCA/6226/2014 JUDGMENT

¶24

[1] This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 05.04.2014 passed by respondent no. 1, in exercise of powers conferred under section 3[1] / 3[2] of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 [for short ‘the Act’] by detaining the detenue as a “bootlegger” as defined under section 2[b] of the Act.

¶25

[2] Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

¶26

[3] Learned advocate for the detenue submits registration of seven offences itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and, therefore, the public order. He further submits that, except FIRs 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 order. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenue has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of Police, reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 491, Anil Dey v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1974 SC 832, Smt. Angoori Devi v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SC 371 and Darpan Kumar Sharma alias Dharban Kumar Sharma v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2003 SC 971 and the recent judgment dated 28/3/2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram : S.K. Mukhopadhyaya, C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J.] in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 9492 of 2010 [Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police] which would squarely help the detenue.

¶27

[4] Learned AGP submitted that registration of FIRs would go to

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

C/SCA/6226/2014 JUDGMENT

¶30

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.

¶31

[5] Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of the case, I am of the view that seven offences registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to arrive at subjective satisfaction 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. I have also considered the quantity of the prohibition liquor alleged to have been involved in the offences and cannot be taken into consideration the offences registered agaisnt the detenue. On careful perusal of the material available on record and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in above cited cases and the recent judgment dated 28/3/2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2732/2010, 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.

¶32

[6] In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 05.04.2014 passed by the respondent no. 1 is quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.

¶33

(A.J.DESAI, J.)

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

C/SCA/6226/2014 JUDGMENT

¶36

vijay

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Gajanand @ Pandit Son of Trijuginarayan Tivari v. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajanand @ Pandit Son of Trijuginarayan Tivari v. Commissioner of Police

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

Sajid Babubhai Sheikh - (Dhobi) Vs State of Gujarat

Sahdevsinh @ Shatidan Manhardan Barhat Vs State of Gujarat

Pramod Kamlaprasad Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat

Bhartiben Wife of Alex Baiju Wilson Christian Vs State of Gujarat

Surajsing Jagdishsing Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat

Avdhesh Hariprakashsing Thakur Vs District Magistrate