D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for writ of certiorari for quashing the detention order dated 26. 2. 1998 and habeas corpus for immediate release of the petitioner from illegal detention in pursuance of the aforesaid order of detention.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the Detaining Authority under section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 ( for short pasa) passed the impugned detention order. The grounds for detention show that the petitioner was identifying himself as dada of the locality. Several offences under Prohibition Act were registered against the petitioner. According to the grounds of detention 8 cases under Prohibition Act were registered against the petitioner on different dates between September,1996 to January,1998. In addition to this the petitioner was detained under PASA Act earlier vide orders dated 18. 12. 1992 and 19. 12. 1995. It was also alleged that the petitioner was giving threat to the Police Officers of the concerned police station, whenever they raided the distillery of the petitioner, where he was distilling, storing and selling the country made liquor. An offence was also registered against the petitioner on 23. 11. 1997 for giving threat to prohibition police station officer. Besides this, six witnesses gave secret statements against the petitioner which was also disclosed in the grounds of detention. On the aforesaid material the detaining authority reached subjective satisfaction that the petitioner was carrying on antisocial activity of filtering and selling country made liquor. This activity of the petitioner was causing financial and physical injury to the residents of the locality and it was likely to repeat hooch tragedy which seriously affected public at large in the past. These activities of the petitioner were considered to be against the maintenance of public order and hence the order of detention was passed.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on various grounds.

( 4 ) THE first contention has been that the copy of bail application and bail order was not supplied by the Detaining Authority to the petitioner and this has affected valuable right of the petitioner in making effective representation to the authority. To my mind, this ground has no substance. In counter affidavit Shri V. S. Gadhavi, District Magistrate in para 10 has deposed that copy of bail order, bail application and other documents relied upon by him were supplied to the petitioner along with grounds of detention. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Thus, if the averments made in the affidavit were controverted in counter affidavit and no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner it will be presumed that counter affidavit is correct and as such copies of bail application and bail order were supplied to the petitioner. This ground has therefore no substance.

( 5 ) ANOTHER contention has been that the activities of the petitioner cannot be said to have disturbed public order nor such activities can be described as prejudicial to maintenance of public order. From the grounds of detention it seems that the petitioner has carried on business of distilling, storing and selling country made liquor. This activity within the meaning of section 3 (b) of PASA Act will render him a bootlegger. However, mere involvement in bootlegging activity does not tantamount to disturbance of public order. Unless the activities of the petitioner have direct impact upon maintenance of public order he could not be preventively detained under preventive detention under the PASA Act. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1989, SC Pg. 491 has observed that merely because a person is engaged in bootlegging activity and he is a bootlegger within the definition of section 2 (b) of the PASA Act, he cannot be preventively detained u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document