S. Poti, Mrs. H. Wahi and M.N. Shroff for the Respondent s. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. This is a petition under Artic le 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality a nd validity of the order of detention dated 17.9.1988 passed by the detaining authority the Commissioner of Police, Ahmed a bad City clamping upon the petitioner the detenu herei n the impugned order of detention under Sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activ i ties Act, 1985 on the ground that he on the materials plac ed before him was satisfied that it was necessary to make th is order of detention with a view to preventing the detenu fr om acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City and directed t he detenu to be detained in Sabarmati Central Prison.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, M.K. Pandit, P.H. Parekh, J.H. Pare kh and M.N. Sompal for the Petitioner.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
5 of 1988.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Criminal No.
The Government approved the order of detention on 21.9.1988.
In purs u ance of the said order, the detenu has been detained in t he aforesaid prison.
Before adverting to the arguments advanced by Dr. Ch i tale, on behalf of the detenu we would like to produce t he relevant portion of the grounds of detention which rea ds thus As such you are a dangerous person as defined in section 2 c of the said Act, and known as dangerous perso n. As you with the aid of your Associates create dangero us atmosphere in the said vicinity you disturb public peac e, maintenance and as such following offences were register ed against you with Police Records, and in which you we re arrested.
Hence this Writ Petition.
The detenu submitted his representation dat ed 22.9.1988 to the Ist respondent who by his order dat ed 30.9.1988 rejected the same.
In the grounds of detention five cases register ed against the detenu in respect of which he had been arrest ed are taken into companysideration by the detaining authority to draw his subjective satisfaction that the detenu was di s turbing the maintenance of public order.
We shall number examine these companytentions in seriatim.
