The detention order must be supported by material demonstrating prejudicial conduct to public order, and the authorities must consider the detenu's representation at the earliest, as mandated by constitutional and statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, heard finally.

2. In this petition, the petitioner-detenue assails the detention order passed by the respondent No.2-District Magistrate, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, on 29th January 2021 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 ('The Act, 1985') as extended to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

3. The petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts :-

(a) The petitioner claimed to be a Manager of Hotel Malhar Bar and Restaurant, Silvassa. Pursuant to a telephonic information, raid was conducted by Crime Branch, Dadra and Nagar Haveli at Hotel Malhar. It transpired that large quantity of Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL/Beer) was unloaded from a tempo of Eicher make bearing registration No. DN-09-C-9639 and stored in room at the said hotel. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that 3743 litres liquor was sold in the said hotel from 19th November 2020 to 12th January 2021, which was highly unlikely having regard to the occupancy and footfall in the Hotel Mahlar. The investigation further revealed that the petitioner, allegedly a notorious bootleger in the neighbouring State of Gujarat, was employed as a Manager in the said hotel with a view to carry out smuggling of liquor on large scale. A huge stock of 12,873 bulk litres was purchased from OIDC in a short span of three months and smuggled out therefrom.

(b) The Detaining Authority took note of the fact that in all seven cases were registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Having satisfied that the petitioner was a bootleger and the continuous activity of bootlegging on large scale was causing feeling of insecurity among the general public and thus prejudicial to the maintenance of public order within the meaning of section 3 of the Act, 1985, the Detaining Authority ordered the detention of the petitioner under section 3 of the Act, 1985 by the impugned order dated 29th January 2021.

(c) The petitioner came to be arrested and detained on the very day. Upon being served with the grounds of detention, the petitioner made a representation against the detention order. However, the respondents did not consider and decide the representation. Hence, this petition for quashing the order of detention with the assertion that the detention is in gross violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and the statutory provisions which authorize the preventive detention.

4. Multi-Fold grounds are raised in the petition assailing the impugned order of detention. First and foremost, there was no material to indicate that the petitioner is a 'bootleger' within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act, 1985. Secondly, even if the case of the Detaining Authority is taken at par and it is assumed that the petitioner is a bootlegger, yet, there is not a shred of material to indicate that the acts and conduct of the petitioner were, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Mere allegations, or for that matter proof, of being a bootlegger is not sufficient to deprive the petitioner of his personal liberty in the absence of the material to indicate that the acts attributed to the petitioner disturbed the public order. Thirdly, the fundamental right of the petitioner to make and have the representation against the order of detention considered by the Detaining Authority and the State Government under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is blatantly infringed as the respondents did not consider the representation of the petitioner. Inaction on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 till the Advisory Board opined that there were sufficient grounds for continuation of the detention, resulted in grave and irretrievable prejudice to the petitioner. On these principal, amongst other, grounds the petitione