C/SCA/1148/2019 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1148 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to

see the judgment ?

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the

judgment ?

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law

as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any

order made thereunder ?

==========================================================

PREMSHANKAR KASUTRDAS SHARMA THROU FRIEND, MANISH

SHIVSHANKAR PANCHAL

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR ANKIT B PANDYA(5906) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MR RASHESH RINDANI AGP or the Respondent(s) No. 1, 2 and 3

==========================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

Date : 02/05/2019

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India is filed by the petitioner challenging the order

of detention dated 1.1.2019, passed by respondent No.2

herein, in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (2) of

Page 1 of 9

C/SCA/1148/2019 JUDGMENT

Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social

Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as ‘PASA’)

being order No.PCB/DTN/PASA/2/2019 came to be executed

upon the petitioner on 11.01.2019.

2.

Mr.Ankit Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner

has drawn the attention of the Court to the grounds of

the impugned order of detention to submit that the only

material on which the said order is based is the solitary

offence registered against the petitioner under the

provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short,

herein after referred to as, ‘the Act’). It is submitted

that except the solitary offence registered against the

petitioner on the record of the said case, there was no

other material before the detaining authority. He further

submitted that merely an offence has been registered

against the petitioner under the Act, without anything

more, it cannot be said that the activities of the

petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public

health and/or public order. He has further contended that

the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining

authority is based upon the fact that the petitioner is a

“Bootlegger” as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act and

the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Piyush Kantial Mehta V/s.

Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and another

reported in 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 322. He has further

contended that for an offence under the Act, he may be

dealt with and if he is found guilty of the offence, he

can be punished accordingly. But, such acts constituting

the offence under the Act can never be said to have

affected even the tempo of life of the community. At the

same time, by mere registration of offence under the Act,

Page 2 of 9

C/SCA/1148/2019 JUDGMENT

it cannot be said that the activities carried on by the

petitioner affects adversely or is likely to affect

adversely the maintenance of public order. Therefore, it

is submitted that the subjective satisfaction recorded by

the detaining authority being based on no material,

stands vitiated and as such, the impugned order of

detention deserves to be set aside.

3.

On the other end, Mr.Rashesh Rindani, learned

Assistant Govern