IMPORTANT POINT When the illegal activities imputed to the detenu cannot be said to have either affected adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of Gujarat prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act the under is liable to be quashed.

Headnote:Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985- Section 3(1)- Order of detention under- Validity challenged - The materials available on record are not sufficient and adequate for holding that the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu have either affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order- The order is libale to be quashed. (Piyush Mehtas case: 1988(4) J.T. 703 (S.C.) : relied on).
       Held: Of the six cases mentioned in the table extracted above, it is not in dispute that the first two cases namely CR. Nos. 113/87 and 256/87 registered under the provisions of the Prohibition Act have ended in acquittal. The cases under S.I. Nos. 3,4 and 6 are pending trial and the remaining case under S.I. No.5 is pending enquiry. (Para 4)
       Further Held: When the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the decision in Piyush Mehtas case we are of the view that the observation made in Piyush Mehtas case is clearly applicable to the instant case.
       Further we are not impressed by the pleonastic contention based on an illogical reasoning advanced by Mr. G.A. Shah surcharged with undue emotion to overstate his case On this point pleading that there is massive material in the present case to sustain the detention or order. As in Piyush Mehtas case, the materials available on record in the present case are not sufficient and adequate for holding that the alleged prejudicial activities of the detenu have either affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order within the meaning of Section 3(4) of the Act and as such, the order is liable to be quashed. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:- This writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/detenu challenging the validity of the order of detention dated 3-1-1989 made by the detaining authority, namely, the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. The detaining authority further directed the petitioner/detenu to be detained in Sabarmati Central Jail in pursuance of the said detention order. The detenu has been furnished with copies of the grounds of detention and all the other materials inclusive of the statements of the witnesses on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction for passing this impugned order has been reached by the detaining authority. The pith and substance of the alleged antisocial activities of the detenu as mentioned in the grounds of detention are that the detenu as a bootleggar was engaged in unlawfully storing and selling the country-made and foreign liquor at Dhabawali Chawl, Saraspur, Ahmedabad through himself and his associates and was also causing injuries to innocent persons of that locality by using lethal weapons thereby unleashing a reign of terror in the said area. In this regard four cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act; one under the Indian Arms Act and another under the Indian Penal Code have been registered. For a better understanding, we reproduce the relevant portion of the grounds of detention giving the details of the alleged anti-social activities of the detenu as found in the grounds of detention:

"Following cases under the prohibition law and under Indian Penal Code are registered against you in the police register and you are arrested in the said crimes:

No. Police Station CR. No. Sections Material seized Remarks

1. Sherkotd 113/87 Proh. Act 10 Ltr. country liquor Not proved

66(b)

65(e)

2. -do- 256/87 -do- -do- -do-

3. -do- 325/88 -do- 162 ltr. pending trial

690 ml. ltr. country liquor

4. DCB 12/88 -do- 52 ltr. -do-

350 ml. ltr. foreign liquor

5. DCB 12/88 Arms Act Country made revolver cartridges 6 pending enquiry

25(1)(c)

6. Sherkotd 503/87 IPC 143, 147, 149, 307, 452 etc. Stick, pipe, dharia, sword. pending trial

Thus, after careful consideration of the entire materials of the proposal it is found that by possessing deadly weapons you are beating innocent citizens in public in the said area and creating fear by threatening and carrying on criminal anti-social activities by selling country and foreign liquor in the said area. In the said area under the allegation of police informants, you are beating the innocent citizens by show of deadly weapons. You are compelling the innocent persons to store the prohibited material in their house in the said area and upon their refusal you are beating them by showing deadly weapons. In the result, the atmosphere of risk to the person and properties of the residents in the said area has been created and thus you have become hindrance to the maintenance of public order."

2. In support of the above allegations the sponsoring authority has placed the statements of 4 witnesses recorded on the 1st and 2nd January 1989 whose names are not disclosed as permitted under S. 9(2) of the Act. According to the detaining authority the recourse for actions under S. 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act or under S. 56(b) of the Bombay Police Act could be of no avail.

3. Mr. B. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised several contentions questioning the legality 498 and validity of the order of detention, the main thrust of which being that the alleged illegal activities imputed to the detenu cannot be said to have either affected adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1989 Supreme(SC) 533

Cases Referred (8)