The distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' is crucial; mere disturbances of law and order do not justify preventive detention under the relevant Acts.

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. The petitioner herein namely Ranabhai Baghabhai Bhammar came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, as a “money lending ofenderr as defned under Section 2(ga) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred as ‘the Act of 1985).

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. K. G. Brahmbhatt and Ms. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the grounds of detention has no nexus to the “public orderr, but is a purely a matter of law and order, as registration of the ofence cannot be said to have either afected adversely or likely to afect adverse the maintenance of public order as contemplated under the explanation sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, 1985 and therefore, where the ofences alleged to have been committed by the detunue have no bearing on the question of maintenance of public order and his activities could be said to be a prejudicial only to the maintenance of law and order and not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the application contended that, the detenue is habitual ofender and his activities afected at the society at large. In such set of circumstances, the Detaining Authority, considering the antecedents and past activities of the detenue, has passed the impugned order with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Surat.

6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, the issue arises as to whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of his powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?

7. The order impugned was executed upon the applicant and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of one criminal case registered against the applicant for the ofeene pueishable ueder Sentioes 115(2), 308(5), 352, 351(2)(4), 54 aed Sentioes 40 aed 42 of Gujarat Moeey Leeders Ant, 2011 registered with Varanhha Poline Statioe was made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a “money lending ofenderr afects adversely or are likely to afect adversely the maintenance of public order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985. Admittedly, in all the said ofences, the applicant was granted bail.

8. The term ‘money lending ofenderr defned under Section

2(ga) reads as under:

"money lending ofendeer means a peeson, who commits oe attempts to commit oe abets the commission of ofences undee Chaptee IX of the Gujaeat Money Lendees Act, 2011 oe a money lendee oe any peeson engaged by the money lendee oe someone acting on his behalf, who uses oe theeatens to use physical violence dieectly oe otheewise oe theough any peeson against any peeson foe the puepose of collecting any paet of the loan oe inteeest theeeon oe any instalment theeeof oe foe taking any movable oe immovable peopeety connected with the loan teansaction oe the eealization of whole oe paet of the loan amount oe inteeest theeeon.r

9. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that, there is no material placed before the authority to establish that the applicant was convicted of an ofence punishable under the provisions of Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011 within a period of 3 years from the date of such conviction who commits or attempts to commit or abets the commission of ofenc