By way of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention seeking the same to be set aside. A writ of habeas corpus is sought. Also prayed is a further direction to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith. The order of detention dated 04th September, 2012 is passed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch in exerciser of powers under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PASA Act'). The petitioner is declared as bootlegger and a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. 2. The impugned order on record shows that preventive detention is ordered on the basis of five different First Information Reports registered against the petitioner. The first is registered at Crime Register No.III-268 of 2012 on 23rd April, 2012 with Bharuch 'A' Division Police Station; second is registered at Crime Register No.III-598 of 2012 dated 13th June, 2012; third one at Crime Register No.III-599 of 2012 dated 13th June, 2012; fourth bearing Crime Register No.III-600 of 2012 dated 13th June, 2012 and fifth being Crime Register No.III-627 of 2012 dated 17th June, 2012. The last four FIRs are registered with Ankleshwar City Police Station. They all for the offences under Sections 61(4), 65 and 116 of the provisions of the Act. It is mentioned that from the petitioner, bottles of foreign liquor, etc., were recovered.
3. The allegations set-out in the order as grounds for the preventive detention are that the petitioner is engaged in selling liquor till late night in Ankleshwar City and GIDC area without permission to sell. It is alleged that these activities have adverse effect on the children, that the people often indulge into fights in the drunken condition and eve-tease ladies. It is stated that it results into breach of public peace and public order. It is further alleged that activities of such kind create adverse effects on the youth and further that the consumption of liquor becomes injurious to health. The petitioner is also declared as bootlegger and a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the grounds mentioned in the order of detention have not been substantiated from any material. It was submitted that it may be true that the offence under the Prohibition Act are registered against the petitioner, but the various allegations, which are in the impugned order are ipsi dixit of the Authority. It was submitted that bald allegations cannot be a ground for preventive detention. It was submitted that in any view there is no breach of public order which is the basis for passing the preventive detention orders. Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that the order is passed after three months from the date of registration of the offences, which itself shows that there was no eminent danger to public order which is arrived at by the detention authority for passing the order.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the order was passed on subjective satisfaction of the authority, which is based on materials. The petitioner was a dangerous person within the meaning of law and was a bootlegger. relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is stated that five offences are registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prohibition Act and the order of detention is passed on the basis of the facts that the petitioner has been engaged in illegal selling of liquor which is injurious to health and there is possibility of creating hooch tragedy. It is stated further in the affidavit that the activities of the petitioner is likely to create health hazard to general public.
6. Section 3 of the Act under which powers are exercised for passing the impugned order reads as under:
“Sec.3 Power to make orders detaining certain persons:
(1) The State Government may if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.
(2) If having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct that the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section.
(3) When any order is made under this section by an authorised officer, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government, together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, has a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government.
(4) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" when such person is engaged in or is making preparation for engaging in any activities, whether as a bootlegger or dangerous person or drug offender or immoral traffic offender or property grabber, which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this subsection, public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia if any of the activities of any person referred to in this sub-section directly or indirectly, is causing or is likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property or public health."
6.1 Section 2(b) of the PASA Act defines 'bootlegger' as under:
“S.2(b)"bootlegger" means a person who distills, manufactures, stores, transports, imports, exports, sells or distributes any liquor, intoxicating drug or other intoxicant in contravention of any provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (Bom.XXV of 1949) and the rules and orders made thereunder, or of any other law for the time being in force or who knowingly expends or applies any money or supplies any animals, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance or any receptacle or any other material whatsoever in furtherance or support of the doing of any of the things described above by or through any other person, or who abets in any other manner the doing of any such thing.”
7. On going through the impugned order and considering the rival submissions in the context of the above provisions, it cannot be disputed that the order under Section 3(1) of the PASA Act is passed as a measure of preventive measure against a person found to be acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the person is required to be preventively detained, the order is passed. For exercise powers in this regard two basic conditions need to be met with. Firstly there must be genuine apprehension of breach of public order. Secondly the allegations in the order must stand substantiated by relevant material, with regard to both the aspects above, the relevant materials should guide the powers of preventive detention. It is well settled that there has to be likelihood of breach of public order. The preventive detention laws are enacted to ensure that the public order is maintained.
7.1 There is distinction between “public order” and “law and order”. “Law and order” are monitored by the ordinary laws of the land. In Pushker Mukherjee vs State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 852], the Supreme Court drew distinction between term “public order” and expression “law and order” in the following manner:
“Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof ? It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act.”
7.2 when the ordinary laws of the land can be applied to book the offenders for their offences, it is never considered appropriate to invoke prevention detention laws. It is true that offences under the Prohibition Act are registered against the petitioner, however, on the basis of registration of these offences only, the authority could not have conceived apprehension regarding breach of public order. Even otherwise, relevant provisions and Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be used against the petitioner if he is found to be indulging into activities, which amounts to breaking of law and order.
7.3 The impugned order of preventive detention is sought to be justified by making various allegations and statements. However, they are not supported by any material worth the name. The imaginary assessment of the situation by the authority unsupported by any material, cannot occupy place as legal and valid grounds for preventive detention. The grounds of detention mentioned in the detention order are too general to be accepted. Except bald allegations, there is no supportive material for the allegations that the activities of the petitioner have or would have effect as stated in the order. Unless there is material to substantiate such grounds, preventive detention cannot sustain.
7.4 Even otherwise, it is difficult to view those grounds as one which are prejudicial to 'public order'. As noted above, from the observations in Pushker Mukherjee (supra), the term public order is wider term. Commission of offences necessarily do not mean that public order is breached. The authority cannot substitute what is not breach of “Public Order” for what is really breach of “Law and Order” and justify preventive detention. The impugned order of preventive detention have tested on the aforesaid provisions, the same fails to sustain.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 04th September, 2012 passed by the respondent No.1-District Magistrate, Bharuch is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner-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.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) Anup