Gujarat High Court
SCA/9401/1996 of SULTAN MOHMMED HANIF SHAIKH Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 16 December 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 9401 of 1996 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 9401 of 1996
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
-------------------------------R
SULTAN MOHMMED HANIF SHAIKH
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Petitioner Mr Umesh Trivedi, AGP for Respondent No. 2, 3
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR Date of decision: 16/12/96
The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1985') by the order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat. It is alleged that the petitioner is a bootlegger and some cases under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 have been registered against him. It is now well settled that unless the activities of a person as bootlegger has disturbed the maintenance of public order, he cannot be detained under the Act. Reliance is placed on a decision in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 491. In the instant case there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has indulged in any criminal activities as a bootlegger which has affected or likely to affect maintenance of public order. Thus, in my view, the impugned order of detention is ex-facie illegal and the same cannot be sustained.
2. In view of the aforesaid, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.1996 is quashed and set aside. The detenu shall be released forthwith if not required in any other cases. Rule made absolute accordingly.
....
ORAL JUDGEMENT