IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in passing the order of detention and the sufficiency of the grounds of detention are crucial factors in determining the validity of a detention order.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order of detention dated 29.09.2023 for following relief:-

“(A) Admit this Special Civil Application.

(B) Allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order Kramank/DC/PASA/SR/14/2023 of detention at Annexure-‘A’ dt. 29/09/2023 passed by the respondent no.2 & connected proceedings.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this Special Civil Application, grant stay as to the further implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order Kramank/DC/PASA/SR/14/2023 of detention at Annexure-‘A’ dt.29/09/2023 passed by the respondent no.2 & connected proceedings.”

2. At the outset, it is observed that pursuant to the order dated 08-01-2024 issuing Rule in the matter, on behalf of the State, Affidavit of the Detaining Authority is placed on record giving explanation with regard to the non-mentioning of relevant Circular issued by the State Government, which are required to be referred to before passing the order of detention. Such explanation is accepted by the Court.

3. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 29.09.2023 by the Detaining Authority namely District Magistrate, Gandhinagar by which the petitioner has been detained as “bootlegger”. The grounds of detention would indicate that the petitioner has been detained as “bootlegger” on the basis of two offences registered with Pethapur Police Station under the provisions of the Prohibition Act and treated the petitioner to be “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act.

3.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has primarily challenged the order of detention on the ground of delay. According to the petitioner, the Detaining Authority has committed delay of 2 months and 24 days in passing the order of detention, which will be fatal to the detention.

3.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the Detaining Authority has failed to indicate in the grounds of detention, as to in which manner, so called anti-social activities of the petitioner is detrimental to the public health and therefore, is a breach in public order. It is submitted that this argument is made on the ground that the Detaining Authority had option of resorting to lessor drastic remedy of cancellation of bail rather than passing the order of detention.

4. Learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the grant of petition and has submitted that as the petitioner was indulged in two offences of similar nature under the Prohibition Act and therefore, would clearly fall in the definition of “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act.

5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that while accepting the explanation offered by the Detaining Authority in the present case, the Court proceeds to observe that the Guidelines laid down pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, are required to be complied with scrupulously and it is evident from the grounds of detention, which are placed collectively at Annexure-A to the petition, wherein grounds of detention are highly insufficient to meet with requirement of Guidelines, which are issued by the State pursuant to the various directions of this Court as well as the Apex Court. The Court finds that no sufficient reasons are addressed in the grounds of detention, so as to justify various grounds, on which the detention order is based.

5.1 It is expected that henceforth the Detaining Authority shall strictly comply with requirement of law in letter and spirit and not by merely mentioning and using the language of the guidelines, before passing the order of detention.

5.2 The Court has taken into consideration that the petitioner has been detained by the Detaining Authority namely District Magistrate, Gandh