Advocates:
['DHAVAL G BAROT', 'RULE SERVED BY DS', '', 'ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP', 'GOVERNMENT PLEADER']

C/SCA/293/2018 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 293 of 2018

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH

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

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 ?

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

KALUBHAI CHATURBHAI RAVAL

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

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

Appearance:

MR. DHAVAL G BAROT for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1

MR SHIRISH GOHIL, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2

GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3

RULE SERVED BY DS for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH

Date : 08/03/2018

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

This petition is directed against the order

of detention dated 29.11.2017 passed by

respondent No.2, in exercise of powers

conferred under section 3(1)/3(2) of the

Page 1 of 6

C/SCA/293/2018 JUDGMENT

Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities

Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) by detaining

the detenu as a “bootlegger” as defined under

section 2(b) of the Act.

2.

Learned advocate for the detenu submits

registration of FIRs itself cannot lead to

disturbance of even tempo of public life and,

therefore, the public order. He further

submits that, except FIR registered under the

Bombay Prohibition Act, there was no other

material before the detaining authority

whereby it could be inferred reasonably that

the detenu is a ‘bootlegger’ within the

meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and

required to be detained as the detenu’s

activities are prejudicial to the maintenance

of public health and public order. In support

of the above submission, learned counsel for

the detenu has placed reliance on judgment of

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Piyush

Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police,

reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 491, Anil Dey Vs.

State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1974 SC

832, Smt.Angoori Devi v. Union of India

reported in AIR 1989 SC 371 and Darpan Kumar

Sharma alias Dharban Kumar Sharma Vs. State

of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2003 SC 971 and

the recent judgment dated 28/3/2011 passed by

the Division Bench of this Court (Coram :

Page 2 of 6

C/SCA/293/2018 JUDGMENT

S.K. Mukhopadhyaya, C.J. & J.B.Pardiwala, J.)

in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2732 of 2010 in

Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010

(Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police) which

would squarely help the detenu.

3.

Learned AGP submitted that registration of

FIR/s would go to show that the detenu had,

in fact, indulged into such activities, which

can be said to be disturbing the public

health and public order and in view of

sufficient material before the detaining

authority to pass the order of detention, no

interference is called for by this Court in

exercise of its power under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

4.

Having heard the rival submissions of the

parties and perused the record of the case, I

am of the view that FIR/s registered under

the Bombay Prohibition Act alone cannot be

said to be sufficient enough to arrive at

subjective satisfaction to the effect that

the acti