IMPORTANT POINT
Unreasonable delay in passing the detention order, reliance on stale offences, and failure to consider subsequent developments in previous detention orders vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following reliefs:

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction to the respondents authority to quash and set aside the detention order passed by the respondent no.2 herein vide Number/PCB/DTN/PASA/529/2023 dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure-A) in the interest of justice;

(c) Pending admission and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the proposed detention order passed by the respondent no.2 herein Number/PCB/DTN/PASA/529/2023 dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure-A) in the interest of justice;

(d) xxx.. xxx… xxx;

(e) xxx.. xxx… xxx.”

2. The challenge is to the order of detention dated 27.09.2023 passed by the respondent– detaining authority viz. the Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedabad, in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by detaining the petitioner – detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that the offences on which the detaining authority has relied upon are of private nature and cannot be said that even tempo of life in general public was disturbed on account of role attributed to the applicant in such offences.

4. Learned advocate has further challenged the order of detention on the ground of delay in passing the order of detention as the applicant was enlarged on 12.08.2023 on regular bail in connection with the last offence registered. Thereafter delay of 1.5 months, the detention order was passed on 27.09.2023.

5. Learned advocate has also challenged the order on the ground that the detaining authority has relied upon the stale offences as amongst four offences relied upon by the detaining authority, two offences are registered in the year 2020 to 2022.

6. As against that, learned AGP is objecting to grant of the petition submitted that the petitioner has arraigned as accused in four FIRs in under Chapters 16 and 17 of the IPC and therefore, is continuing indulgence in such offences as made him an habitual offender. Thereby justifying the detaining authority to treat the petitioner as a ‘dangerous person’ as contemplated under section 2(C) of the PASA.

7. Learned AGP has also submitted that on earlier occasion also twice the petitioner has been detained in the year 2021 and 2022. Despite this, the petitioner has continued to indulge into similar kind of activities.

8. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that thought the petitioner was detained under the previous orders of detention in the year 2021-2022 yet, the said orders were the subject matter of challenge before this Court and this Court has set aside the orders of detention which the detaining authority ought to have referred to.

9. Having heard rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, the petitioner is detained as a ‘dangerous person’ by the impugned order of detention under PASA dated 27.09.2023 by the Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedabad.

10. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon four FIRs registered under IPC with Amraivadi and Bapunagar Police Stations. The details of which are in tabular form given as under:

11. The Court has observed that the last