The central legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act are not applicable to the Union Territory of Daman, which influenced the court's decision to quash the impugned order of detention.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner detenu has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 19.03.2020 passed by the respondent authority under the provisions contained in the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’). The impugned order has been confirmed by the PASA Board on 28.09.2020.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, he is the resident of Daman, the Union Territory, and is running a Bar & Restaurant in the name and style of “Kamal Bar & Restaurant” at Daman. The petitioner has been granted the certificate of registration under the Central Sales Tax (Registration & Turnover) Rules, 1957 as well as the certificate of Registration under Daman & Diu Value Added Tax Regulation, 2005. The Department of Excise, Daman had also granted the licence of retail sale of foreign liquor/Indian made liquor in the year 1993, which has been renewed from time to time till this date. According to him, the impugned order of detention has been passed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner was involved in three cases for the offence registered under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, and therefore, was a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the said Act and that his activities were likely to adversely affect the maintenance of the public order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.

3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned advocate Mr. Prajapati for the petitioner that apart from the fact that no offence as alleged in the three FIRs registered against the petitioner as mentioned in the impugned order has been committed by the petitioner, the provisions contained in the Gujarat Prohibition Act do not apply to the Union Territory of Daman, and therefore, also, the question of violation of the provisions contained in the Prohibition Act would not arise. In this regard, Mr. Prajapati has relied upon two unreported decisions of this Court in the case of Yogeshbhai Bhikhabhai Chaudhari versus State of Gujarat and Another in Criminal Misc. Application No. 18791 of 2014, dated 22.07.2019, and in the case of Mahendrabhai Dahayabhai (Kamli) Patel versus State of Gujarat and others in Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Setting Aside FIR/Order) No. 3992 of 2013 and others, dated 25.09.2013. He has also pressed into service the certificates issued by the different authorities at Annexure ‘C’ collectively.

4. Learned AGP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, however submitted that the applicant is involved in three offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the coaccused had categorically stated that the muddamal liquor was purchased from the shop of the present applicant at Daman. She also submitted that since the coaccused were arrested within the territory of State of Gujarat for the violation of the provisions contained in the Prohibition Act, the present applicant being coaccused, would also be liable for the said offences.

5. At the outset, it may be stated that as transpiring from the impugned detention order, though the petitioner is allegedly involved in three cases for the offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, in all three cases, he was involved at the instance of the statement made by the coaccused. Even if the allegations made in the said cases are prima facie held to be true, then also the coaccused had made their respective statements to the effect that the muddamal liquor was sold by the present applicant from his Bar and Restaurant at Daman. In all three cases, similar allegations have been made and similar statements of coaccused have been recorded, relying upon which the impugned order of detention has been passed, declaring him as the “bootlegger” as defined under Section 2(b) of the said Act. The definition of “bootlegger” contained in the said provision reads as under:

“2(b) “bootlegger” means the person who distills, manufacturers, store