1. This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 10.02.2012 passed by respondent No.1, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of The Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (in short “the Act”).
2. Learned Advocate for the detenue submits that registration of the FIR itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and therefore the public order. He further submits that, except the FIR registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, there was no other material before the detaining authority whereby it could be inferred reasonably that the detenue is required to be detained as the detenue's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of
Magistrate to the Central and the State Government and besides, the documents supplied are illegible. In support of the above submission, learned Counsel for the detenue has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in the case of Harishchandrasinh Ajitsinh Jadeja V. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 (2) GCD (UJ) 103 and also the decision of this Court in the case of Naranbhai Kalyanbhai Walla v. State of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.7620/1999 and also the recent judgment dated 28.03.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : S.K. Mukhopadhaya C.J. and 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 detenue.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of the FIR would go to show that the detenue 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 the FIR registered under the The Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to arrive at subjective satisfaction to the effect that the activities, as alleged, are prejudicial to the public order or lead to disturbance of public order. There has to be nexus and link for such activities with disturbance of the public order. On careful perusal of the material available on record and the recent judgment dated 28.03.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : S.K. Mukhopadhaya C.J. and 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), I am of the view that the activities of the detenue cannot be said to be in any manner prejudicial to the public order and therefore, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside.
5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 10.01.2012 is quashed and set aside, if not revoked. The detenue, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(M.D. Shah, J.)
Caroline