1. The detenu has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1985') by the order dated 18-8-2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot District, and detenu has been declared as dangerous person.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. Also perused the record.
3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that three offences being Upleta Police Station Crime Register No.I-99 of 2007 dated 17-11-2007, Upleta Police Station Crime Register No.I-34 of 2009 dated 6-7-2009 and Upleta Police Station Crime Register No.I-3161 of 2011 dated 12-6-2011 under the IPC have been registered against the detenu. It is further submitted that in the second offence, he was acquitted and in other offences, present applicant was released on bail. On the basis of registration of the said cases, the detaining authority held that since the activities of steeling of vehicles by the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, to restrain from carrying said activities further, the detenu has been detained. It is further submitted that the activities of the detenu cannot be said to be disturbing the “public order”. It is also submitted that grounds which are mentioned in the order are in reference to the situation of “law and order” and not “public order”. Therefore, on this ground, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated on account of non-application of mind and the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenu has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of police, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 491 and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in Letters Patent Appeal No2732 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492 of 2010 (Aartiben vs. Commissioner of Police) which would squarely help the detenu.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of FIRs 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.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of the case, I am of the view that FIRs registered under IPC 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 ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra) and the recent judgment dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court [Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhaya C.J. & J.B. Pardiwala, J].] in Letters Patent Appeal No2732 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 detenu 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.
7. The petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 18-8-2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot District, passed against the detenu is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(M.D.SHAH,J.) radhan