Gujarat High Court
SCA/6357/1996 of KAMLESH @ KAPLI B SINDHI Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE on 6 November 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 6357 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 6357 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
0
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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- KAMLESH @ KAPLI B SINDHIVersus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MS DR KACHHAVAH for Petitioner Shri Kamal Mehta, AGP for the respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
Date of decision: 06/11/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 26th July 1996, the petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act"). It is contended that simply because the petitioner is alleged to be a bootlegger, he cannot be detained under PASA Act, contended that simply because the petitioner is alleged to be a bootlegger, he cannot be detained under PASA Act, unless there is any material to show that his activities are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and another, A.I.R. 1989 SC 491.
2. I have perused the material on record with the assistance of the learned counsel. There is no material on the record to show that the activities of the petitioner, as a bootlegger, had adversely affected or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Thus, the order of detention cannot be upheld. In the result the Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of detention dated 26th July 1996 is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the petitioner-detenu shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute.
-oOo-
karim*