SAVITABEN v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CITY OF AHMEDABAD
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Application is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR Date of decision: 07/10/98 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1985') by the order dated 21.5.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. It is alleged that the petitioner is a bootlegger and some cases under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 have been registered against him. It is now well settled that unless the activities of a person as bootlegger has disturbed the maintenance of public order, he cannot be detained under the Act. Reliance is placed on a decision in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 491. In the instant case there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has indulged in any criminal activities as a bootlegger which has affected or likely to affect maintenance of public order. Thus, in my view, the impugned order of detention is ex-facie illegal and the same cannot be sustained.
Operative part
2.(cid:9)In view of the aforesaid, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order dated
21.5.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City is quashed and set aside. The detenu shall be released forthwith if not required in any other cases. Rule made absolute accordingly. ....
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985; Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 07 Oct 1998. 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.