Sca No. 5672 of 2008 · Gujarat High Court

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 20/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents.

The petitioner-detenue has preferred this SCA/5672/2008 JUDGMENT petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated

13.12.2007 passed by the respondent No.1-Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, in exercise of power under sub-section(2) of Section (3) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (“PASA Act” for short) whereby the petitioner has been detained as a “Dangerous person”. In pursuance of the said impugned order, the petitioner is detained in Porbandar Jail, Porbandar.

From the grounds of detention, it appears that three offences being I-CR Nos.474 of 2005, 333 of 2007 and 960 of 2007 have been registered against the detenu at Satellite Police Station, under the provisions of Sections 380 and 454 of IPC, wherein theft of articles like Gold and Silver ornaments, watches, cash etc. were found from the possession of the detenue. On the basis of registration of these cases, the detaining authority held that the present detenue was carrying on activities of theft which is harmful to the health of the public. It is held by the detaining authority that as the detenue is indulged in illegal activities, it is required to restrain the detenue from carrying out further such illegal activities. The detaining authority has placed reliance on the above registered offences and statements of unnamed witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the activities of the detenue can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be disturbing the SCA/5672/2008 JUDGMENT “public order.” In fact, a perusal of the order passed by the detaining authority shows that the grounds which are mentioned in the order are in reference to the situation of “law and order” and not “public order”. Therefore, on this ground, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated on account of non-application of mind and the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Except the statements of some anonymous witnesses, there is no material on record which shows that the petitioner-detenue is carrying on activities of theft which is harmful to the health of the public. In the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat [(2001)(1)GLH 393)], having considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 740), this Court held that the cases wherein the detention order passed on the basis of the statements of the witnesses falls under the maintenance of “law and order” and not “public order”.

Applying the ratio of the above decisions, it is clear that before passing an order of detention of a detenue, the detaining authority must come to a definite finding that there is threat to the “public order” and it is very clear that the present would not fall within the category of threat to “public order”. In that view of the matter, when the order of SCA/5672/2008 JUDGMENT detention has been passed by the detaining authority without having adequate grounds for passing the said order, cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated

13.12.2007 passed by the detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. Sreeram. (M.D.Shah, J.)