Back
A. Y. KOGJE, SAMIR J. DAVE
Mangeshbhai Jivantram Fulwani – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following reliefs:
(b) be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ of Habeas Corpus and or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention at Annexure-A dated 26.09.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 in the interest of justice.
(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 of detention at Annexure-A dated 26.09.2023 passed by the respondent no. 1 in the interest of justice.
(d) xxx xxx xxx”
2. The challenge is to the order of detention dated 26.09.2023 passed by the respondent– detaining authority viz. the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, 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-d
The central legal point established in the judgment is that preventive detention should be considered only when there is a clear nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order, and alternative ....
The distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' as laid down in Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 852] was central to the court's decision.
The detention order must have a live and proximate link between prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention, and delay in passing the detention order can vitiate the detention order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 requires a nexus with the breach of public order, and the failu....
The judgment established that preventive detention should be based on a genuine threat to public order, and alternative measures should be considered before resorting to preventive detention.
The detaining authority must differentiate between offences affecting 'public order' and 'law and order' when issuing a detention order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a 'live and proximate link' between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention in preventive detention cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
