The man had been detained on March 20 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities (PASA) Act for being a “threat to public order”.
The Gujarat High Court has set aside a detention order passed by Junagadh collector against a man charged with bootlegging and directed the state government to immediately release him.
The man had been detained on March 20 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities (PASA) Act for being a “threat to public order”.
The court observed that the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority is not legal and valid. As per the FIR registered against him, the man was charged for possessing branded liquor and buying or selling it.
The court held that offences alleged in the FIR cannot have any bearing on public order as required for passing a detention order by the authority under PASA and relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation.
“Simplicitor registration of FIR by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authority cannot have any recourse under the Act (PASA) and no other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act,” the bench said.
Free From PASA Net
|
The man was detained under Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act for being threat to public order
|
| HC said invocation of PASA wasn’t correct as he had been charged for possessing booze |
Section 3(2) of PASA Act empowers the collector or police commissioner to order the detention of any person considered to be a threat to the maintenance of public order.
As per the case details, the man had moved the HC after the detention order was passed against him.
The man’s counsel contended that the detention order deserves to be quashed as the charges levelled against him in the FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not make him a bootlegger.
It was also contended that illegal activity likely to be carried out cannot have any bearing on the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be a breach of law and order. It was argued that there was nothing on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with the breach of public order.
The counsel for the state government argued that the detention order was passed by the authorities after proper investigation and it should be upheld by the court.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Gujarat High Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}