IMPORTANT POINT
The detention order can be quashed if the offenses do not disturb public order, and the delay in passing the order is fatal.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is inter alia filed for following prayer:-

“(B) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order of detention passed by Respondent No.2 dated 20.09.2023 under the PASA Act, (At Annexure-A).”

2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 20.09.2023 passed by the respondent–detaining authority 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. Under the order of detention dated 20.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedabad by which the petitioner has been detained as a ‘dangerous person’ based on three IPC offenses registered with different Police Station.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that there is a delay of approximately two months in passing the order of detention from the date he was enlarged on bail and therefore, such delay not being explained in the order of detention or by ray of an affidavit will be fatal to the detention order. Learned advocate submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction and the detaining authority before passing the order of detention has not resorted to a lesser drastic remedy nor has he referred in the grounds of detention the reason why the only option available was that of passing the order of detention. Lastly, learned advocate submitted that the nature of offences are not such which can amount to disturbance in public order as the complaint in which the petitioner is arraigned as an accused is arising out of a private dispute between the neighbors.

4. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader has objected to the grant of the petition by submitting that as the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in three IPC offenses falling within Chapter 16 and 17 of the IPC, the definition of the dangerous person is correctly applied to the petitioner and therefore, order of detention is justified.

4.1 He has also submitted that previously also, the petitioner was detained as a dangerous person in the year 2022 and after detention period, the petitioner has once again indulged in the similar type of offense.

5. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the previous order of detention was challenged before this Court and this Court had quashed and set aside such detention order. Moreover, with regard to the previous order, the detaining authority has not taken into consideration the fact that this Court had quashed the detention order and therefore, such material would be rendered irrelevant for the purpose of present detention order.

6. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner by the impugned order has been detained as a dangerous person under order dated 20.09.2023 by the Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedabad.

7. The grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon the following three offences registered at various police stations within the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Commissionarate, details of which are as under:-