The petition er filed Special Criminal Application No.
46/1987, After this petition was heard on 3.8.87, t he Honble High Court quashed the detention order and releas ed you from detention.
The proceedings taken against you ha ve had numbereffect on you and after you were released from t he detention, you have companytinued your activity.
46 of 1987 before t he High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad challenging the validi ty of the said order.
Applicati on No.
1987 quashed the earlier impugned order of detention a nd directed the release of the detenu forthwith.
of 1989.
V. Vaze, M.K. Pandit and P.H. Parekh for the Petitioner.
A companyy of t he High companyrt order is annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexu re The detaining authority in this case had made a refe r ence about the previous order in the impugned grounds of detention which reads thus You are associated with bootlegging activity for long tim e, therefore, under order number dated 2.1.87 you were order ed to be detained under PASA and were kept in Baroda Centr al Jail.
Hence this writ petition.
The High Court by its judgment dated 3.
The detenu submitted his representation dat ed 15.12.
S. Poti, M.N. Shroff and Mrs. H. Wahi for the Respondent s. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. This petition under Article of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, t he detenu herein, challenging the legality and validity of t he order of detention dated 21.10.1988 passed by the detaini ng authority the Commissioner of Police, Surat City clampi ng upon the detenu the above said order of detention und er Sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti social Activities Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act on the ground that he on companysideration of t he materials placed before him was satisfied that it was nece s sary to make the said order with a view to preventing t he detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maint e nance of public order in the area of Nanpura Machhiw ad falling under the jurisdiction of Athwa Lines Police St a tion, Surat City and directed the detenu to be detained in Sabarmati Central Prison, Ahmedabad under the companyditio ns specified in the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activ i ties Order, 1985.
But you filed a petition against this order of dete n tion in the High Court by Special Criminal Misc.
The second respondent, the State of Gujarat, approv ed the impugned order on 26.10.1988 and companyfirmed the same on 13.12.
In pursuance of the impugned order t he detenu has been detained in the aforesaid prison.
58F. G 59F G ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Criminal No.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
1988 on which date itself the same was rejected.
T he companyy of the representation sent to the second respondent w as rejected on 21.12.1988.
1988 which was received by the 1st respondent on 19.12.
It is stated in the grounds of detention that the dete nu was illegally keeping in possession the companyntry liquor a nd openly selling the same at the companyer of Nanpura, Machhiwa d, Masjid Wali Gali, Bhandariwad and companyducting a den Add a and that he had been arrested in 1988 for offences under t he Bombay Prohibition Act in respect of which number of cas es were registered which cases are still pending trial as disclosed in Annexure I. It is further stated that t he detenu had engaged 10 persons whose names are given in paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention, to accelerate h is bootlegging activities and those hired persons who we re companyducting den Adda under the instructions and guidance of the detenu had been arrested in 1988 in 19 different cas es under the Bombay Prohibition Act from the detenus ad da during police raids of which 8 cases are pending trial a nd the remaining eleven are under investigation, the details of which are given in Annexure 11 attached to the grounds of detention.
On the above materials and the statements of witnesses placed before him, the detaining authority h ad satisfied himself that the abovementioned bootlegging acti v ities of the detenu in a large scale in an organised mann er were seriously detrimental to the public health and we re likely to endanger public health and companysequently passed th is impuged order of detention.
