KALIDAS DEVJI MALI (VAGHARI) v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Application is allowed and the order of detention dated
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR Date of decision: 04/11/96 ORAL JUDGEMENT : (cid:9)By way of this Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 24.6.1996 passed by the respondent- Commissioner of Police, Baroda City. It is alleged that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act") and his activities had adversely affected the maintenance of public order. Four cases pertaining to offences under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 are said to have been registered against him.
2.(cid:9)This Court by order dated 12.8.1996 made rule returnable on 9.9.1996. The respondents have not filed any reply. However, this application is being opposed by Shri Kamal Mehta, learned AGP.
3.(cid:9)I have gone through the petition and the material on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. There is nothing to indicate that the activities of the petitioner as a bootlegger has in any way adversely affected the maintenance of public order. Thus, following the law laid by the Apex Court in Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and another, A.I.R. 1989 SC 491, the detention of the petitioner cannot be said to sustainable.
Operative part
4.(cid:9)In view of the aforesaid, the Special Civil Application is allowed and the order of detention dated 24th June 1996 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute. -oOo- karim*
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed and the order of detention dated
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 — s. 2(b); Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 24 Jun 1996. The bench was N N MATHUR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.