2.Learned advocate for the detenu submits
registration of FIRs itself cannot lead to
disturbance of even tempo of public life and,
therefore, the public order. He further
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 detenu is a ‘bootlegger’ within the
meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and
required to be detained as the detenu’s
activities are prejudicial to the maintenance
of public health and public order. In support
of the above submission, learned counsel for
the detenu 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 Vs.
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 Vs. 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.)
