2020 Supreme(Guj) 504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J. Desai, J.
Mohsin Inayat Dipoti Through Uncle Hanif Abdulla Dipoti – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No.7313 of 2020 with Civil Application (for Stay) No. 2 of 2020
Decided On : 12-06-2020

Point of Law:
If any act of a person creates panic or fear in the minds of the members of the public upsetting the even tempo of life of the community, such act must be said to have a direct bearing on the question of maintenance of public order. The commission of an offence will not necessarily come within the purview of public order which can be dealt with under ordinary general law of the land.

Headnote:

Preventive Detention – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 332, 186, 188, 504, 506(2), 353 and 269 – Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 – Section 3(2) – Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 51 – Dangerous person – Order of detention – Challenged – Allegations made against the detenue are not correct; that the material collected by the detaining authority and looking to the statement recorded by the detaining authority, it cannot be said that the alleged activities of the petitioner would fall within the purview of dangerous person. In the background of this case, he would further submit that the petitioner is not an habitual offender and cannot be detained under the provisions of PASA Act. By relying upon the decision in case of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh V. M.M.Mehta, Commisioner of Police & Ors. reported in 1995(2) G.L.R.1268, he would further submit that there is no question of breach of any public order and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as 'dangerous person' under the provisions of PASA Act – Held, Perused the impugned order of detention. I am of the opinion that learned advocate for the petitioner has rightly submitted that the decision of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh (Supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single judge as well as before the Division Bench. I have also considered the decisions of [i] Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad [Vekaria] v. State of Gujarat reported in 2000[3] GLR 2696, and [ii] Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat reported in 2000[1] GLH 393 [iii] District Collector, Ananthapur V/s. V. Laxmanan, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 663 [iv] Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2197 – No case is made out and the activities of the present petitioner was not of a dangerous to public at large and I am of the opinion that the grounds for passing the said order, cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside – Impugned order of detention passed by the respondent authority, is hereby quashed and set aside – Application is allowed. (Paras 8, 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:

Detenue came to be detained as dangerous person on his involvement in solitary offence being C.R. registered with Bharuch City A Division Police Station, Bharuch, for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 186, 188, 504, 506(2), 353 and 269 of the IPC and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, as the petitioner has misbehaved with the police officers who were trying to implement the lockdown measures issued by the Central Government pursuant to COVID-19 pandemic – Allegations made against the detenue are not correct; that the material collected by the detaining authority and looking to the statement recorded by the detaining authority, it cannot be said that the alleged activities of the petitioner would fall within the purview of dangerous person. In the background of this case, he would further submit that the petitioner is not an habitual offender and cannot be detained under the provisions of PASA Act. By relying upon the decision in case of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh V. M.M.Mehta, Commisioner of Police & Ors. reported in 1995(2) G.L.R.1268, he would further submit that there is no question of breach of any public order and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as 'dangerous person' under the provisions of PASA Act.

Findings of the court:

Perused the impugned order of detention. I am of the opinion that learned advocate for the petitioner has rightly submitted that the decision of Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh (Supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned Single judge as well as before the Division Bench. I have also considered the decisions of [i] Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad [Vekaria] v. State of Gujarat reported in 2000[3] GLR 2696, and [ii] Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat reported in 2000[1] GLH 393 [iii] District Collector, Ananthapur V/s. V. Laxmanan, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 663 [iv] Amanulla Khan Kudeatalla Khan Pathan V/s. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2197 – No case is made out and the activities of the present petitioner was not of a dangerous to public at large and I am of the opinion that the grounds for passing the said order, cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside – Impugned order of detention dated 11.5.2020 passed by the respondent authority, is hereby quashed and set aside.

Result: Special Civil Application is allowed