1. Heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-detenue and learned AGP for the respondents.
2. The petitioner-detenue has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting the impugned order of detention dated 4.12.2009 passed by the respondent No.2-Police Commissioner, Surat City, whereby in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'PASA') the petitioner has been detained as a dangerous person .
3. Along with the detention order, the petitioner-detenue has been supplied with the grounds of detention. From the grounds of detention, it appears that three offences have been registered against the petitioner detenue two at Puna Police Station being CR No.I-199/2009 and CR No.I-222/2009 and third at Limbayat Police Station being CR No.I-333/2009 under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code wherein it is alleged that the petitioner is engaged in the illegal activity of theft of motor bikes. On the basis of the registration of these cases, the detaining authority, after recording the subjective satisfaction, has come to the conclusion that the present detenue's aforesaid activities are prejudicial to maintenance of 'public order' and ultimately passed the impugned order of detention against him branding him as a Dangerous Person .
4. Except few statements of anonymous witnesses, there is no material on record which shows that the petitioner-detenue is carrying on illegal activities of theft of motor bikes. In the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat [(2001 (1) GLH 393)], having considered the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 740), this Court held that the cases wherein the detention orders are passed on the basis of the statements of such witnesses fall under the maintenance of 'Law and Order' and not 'Public Order'.
5. Applying the ratio of the above decisions, it is clear that before passing an order of detention of a detenue, the detaining authority must come to a definite finding that there is threat to the 'Public Order' and it is very clear that the present case would not fall within the category of threat to 'public order'. In that view of the matter, when the order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority without having adequate grounds, for passing the said order, cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. The petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 4.12.2009 passed against the detenu is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(M.D.Shah, J.) pathan Top