Gujarat High CourtKarimbhai vs State on 5 July, 2012Author:Anant S. DaveBench:Anant S. DaveGujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/3670/2012	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3670 of 2012
 

 
=========================================================


 

KARIMBHAI
HAJIBHAI NOTIYAR THRO BROTHER SHAHBUDDIN HAJIBH - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MS
JAYSHREE C BHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1, 3, 
RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

Date
: 05/07/2012 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDERThis
	petition is directed against the order of detention dated 15.02.2012
	passed by respondent No.2,
	in exercise of powers conferred underSection 3(1)of the Gujarat
	Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short" the
	Act) by detaining the detenue as a "cruel person" as
	defined underSection 2(bbb)of the Act.Learned
	advocate for the detenue submits that the registered case under thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, would not indicate
	anything to support disturbance to public order nor have the
	activities of the detenue affected adversely the maintenance of
	public order and, therefore, the order of detention passed by the
	detaining authority cannot be sustained in law and is required to be
	quashed and set aside.Learned
	Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Maithili Mehta has opposed the
	petition and supported the order of detention in letter and spirit.Having
	heard the learned Counsels for the parties, on perusal of record,
	considering the definition of 'cruel person' "means a
	person who either by himself or as member or leader of a gang
	habitually commits or attempts to commit, abets the commission of an
	offence punishable underSection 8of the Bombay Animal Preservation
	Act, 1954" contained inSection 2(bbb)of the PASA Act and
	the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case ofGopalanachari
	vs. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1981 SC 674,
	where the Apex Court considered and reiterated the law on personal
	liberty vis-a-vis rule of law and procedure contemplated inArticle
	21of the Constitution of India which means fair and not formal
	procedure andArticle 22which specifically spells out the
	procedural safeguards for preventive and punitive detentions and a
	law providing for such detention should conform toArticle 22of the
	Constitution of India, while referring to the decisions of the Apex
	Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi reported in (1978)
	1 SCC 248 and in the case of Hoskot reported
	in (1978) 3 SCC 544, and as held by the learned Single
	Judge of this Court vide Oral Judgment dated 21.2.2005, in Special
	Civil Application No.15105 of 2004 [Iliyas Mohammad hi vs.
	Commissioner of Police], and keeping in mind the object of
	detention law being prevention and not punishment, this Court is of
	the opinion that the activities of the detenue cannot be said to be
	adversely affecting the maintenance of public order and at the most
	fall under the maintenance of "law and order". Hence,
	the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is
	vitiated.In
	the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated
	15.02.2012 is quashed and set aside, if not revoked. The 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.Sd/-(Anant
S. Dave, J.)
 


CarolineTop