http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 8

PETITIONER:

PIYUSH KANTILAL MEHTA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD CITY AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/12/1988

BENCH:

DUTT, M.M. (J)

BENCH:

DUTT, M.M. (J)

NATRAJAN, S. (J)

CITATION:

1989 AIR 491 1988 SCR Supl. (3)1081

1989 SCC Supl. (1) 322 JT 1988 (4) 703

1988 SCALE (2)1583

CITATOR INFO :

APL 1989 SC1703 (20)

F 1990 SC 496 (3 TO 7,10,11)

RF 1992 SC 979 (15,16,21)

ACT:

Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985-

Sections 2 and 3- Detention Order- Validity of- Merely

because a person is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively

detained- Activities should effect adversely maintenance of

public order.

%

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 32- Detention

Order- Assailment of- Permissible by writ petition even

though representation of detenu pending before Advisory

Board.

HEADNOTE:

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the

legality of the order of his detention passed by the

respondent under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat

Prevention of Anti-Social Activities, Act, 1985. In the

grounds of detention, it was alleged that the petitioner was

a prohibition bootlegger, indulging in use of force and

violence, and by illegal sale of liquor the petitioner

created an atmosphere of fear and terror by beating innocent

citizens, thus indulging in anti-social activities which

were against public order. The detention order also

indicated that he was prosecuted in two criminal cases under

the Excise Act and was acquitted in one case and the other

case was pending.

In his writ petition to this Court the petitioner

contended that the grounds of detention were vague and there

was nothing to show that his activities either affected or

are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public

order, and that it is not sufficient to allege that he is a

bootlegger to warrant his detention.

The respondent challenged the maintainability of the

writ petition in view of the pendency of the representation

of the petitioner before the Advisory Board and also

contended that the grounds were not vague being supported by

statements of the witnesses.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 8

Allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of

detention, and directing the release of the petitioner, this

Court.

PG NO 1081

PG NO 1082

HELD: A person may be very fierce by nature, but so long

as the public generally are not affected by his activities

on conduct, the question of maintenance of public order will

not arise. In order that an activity may be said to affect

adversely the maintenance of public order, there must be

material to show that there has been a feeling of insecurity

among the general public. If any act of a person creates

panic or fear in the minds of the members of the public

upsetting the even tempo of life of the community, such act

must be said to have a direct bearing on the question of

maintenance of public order. [1089H; 1090A-B]

The Commission of an offence will not necessarily come

within the purview of ‘public order’. [1090B]

Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 2

S.C.R. 635, relied on.

In the instant case, the detaining authority has failed

to substantiate that the alleged anti-social activities of

the petitioner adversely effect or are likely to affect

adversely the maintenance of public order. It is true some

incidents of beating by the petitioner had taken place, as

alleged by the witnesses. But, such incidents do not have

any bearing on the maintenance of public order. [1090H;

1091A]

It may be that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the

meaning of section