1. The detenu has filed this petition challenging the order of detention dated 18.06.2012 passed by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of subSection (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PASA Act').
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 18.06.2012 by which detenu was arrested and sent to Junagadh Jail, as well as to the grounds supplied by the detaining authority. In the grounds of detention, one criminal case is shown registered against the detenu.
2. Learned Advocate has further submitted that in the order of detention, it is stated that the detenu is carrying on antisocial activities and on the basis of solitary offence of trafficking registered against the detenu, he has been termed as 'Immoral Traffic Offender' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the P.A.S.A. Act. It is also stated in the impugned order that as the said activities of the detenu are dangerous and affecting maintenance of 'public order' and 'public health', the order of detention has been passed against him.
3. He has further submitted that on the basis of only one criminal case registered against the detenu, he cannot be termed as an 'Immoral Traffic Offender'. In support of his case he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court passed in the case of “Sohanlal Surajram Visnoi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.” reported in 2004(2)GLR 1051 wherein it was held as under:
“It may be noted that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that no preventive detention order can be recorded in a solitary incident or instance or offence cannot be accepted in toto. The detaining authority can pass the order of detention even on the basis of a solitary incident or instance, provided there is justifiable subjective satisfaction on objective material and consideration that such incident or offence is likely to create disturbance of “Public Order”. Emphasis is laid on “Public Order” and not on “Law and Order” which belongs to the realm of general law. After having taken into account the statutory definitions of the persons branded as “bootlegger” or “dangerous person” under the P.A.S.A. Act, and detailed factual matrix of each case, the solitary incident or instance in question in these petitions has not been shown or spelt out from the record as affecting the “Public Order” or likely to create public disturbance or prejudicial or adverse to the maintenance of “Public Order”, and therefore, the continued detention of the detenu in each case has not been shown to be justifiable, ...”
4. Hence, he has submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. On the contrary, learned A.G.P. for respondentdetaining Authority has supported the order of detention as well as grounds stated therein and has contended that the Authority has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence, no case is made out calling for interference of this Court.
6. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it appears that the only material that was available with the detaining authority was one criminal case registered against the detenu and on that basis, it cannot be said that the activity of the detenu has become a threat to the maintenance of 'public order' and 'public health'. Mere involvement of the detenu in such activity may not amount to dangerous activity by the detenu and mere mention of them, unless supported by any evidence, cannot be said to be material germane for the purpose of arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activity of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order' and 'public health'.
7. I am, therefore, of the view that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention without there being any credible or cogent material on record in this behalf. I have considered factual and legal aspects emerging from the record of the petition and considered the rival submissions and the facts of the case and also considered the judgment of this Court in the case of Sohanlal Sujaram Visnoi (Supra). In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and also ratio laid down in the case mentioned above, the order of detention cannot be sustained and it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 18.06.2012 passed by respondent No. 2 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.
(A.J.DESAI, J.) *kazi