LexABDUL RAZAK NANNEKHAN PATHAN versus POLICE COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-1}, 7i>,j -~~ ~· ~ ABDUL RAZAK NANNEKHAN PATHAN ~ A ' v. ~ POLICE COMMISSIONER, AHMEDABAD & ANR. ' , JULY 27, 1989 ( 4 [B.C. RAY AND S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] B Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985-Section ;k 3( 1)-Detenu-Detention Order-Mention of Criminal cases registered ·,i~· under 1. P. C.-Detenu had become dangerous person of the area-Held i - that reach and effect not so deep as ro affect public at large--Detention _ _,..Order quashed. c • By the present petition the Petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the detention order passed by the Respondent against him under ·Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The detenu was arrested and kept in Sabarmati Central Jail on S.10.1988. The detenu iiomediately thereafter, made representation D to the detaining authority as well as to tbe State Government as also to the Advisory Board against the detention order but he having not received any reply, he flied this Writ Petition. ~ The grounds of detention which were supplied to tbe detenu inter alia mentioned that by . reason of various criminal acts committed by E him with the help of his companions which included looting of persons, causing injuries by lethal weapons, be had become a terror in the area and as such a dangerous person within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the said Act. Grounds also enumerated seven criminal cases which had been registered against the detenu. The detenu was stated to have committed ·~· offences affecting human body by holding deadly weapons such as F razor, knife, Tamancba, Sword, Hockey stick etc. It was specifically mentioned tbat if the passers by refused to pay to the detenu the money as demanded by him, be used to threaten them of murder by showing weapons. It was also stated in the grounds that particulars of detenu 's anti-social activities were given by four persons of the area, who did not desire that their names be disclosed which were accordingly not dis· G closed claiming.privilege in that behalf. ~ Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts the detaining authority felt satisf"ied that the detenu has been committing offences punishable under I.P.C. and that due to those activities of the detenu, public order was disturbed, be having become a hurdle in the main· H 569 -' 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R. A tenance of public order. This is how the detention order referred to ~ above came to be passed. The Petitioner ,challenged the detention-order principally on two grounds, viz., (i) that the grounds of detention are not germane and relevant as they are vague lacking in material particulars and (ii) that 1 B there has been complete non-application of mind by the detaining + authority in making the order of detention. c The Court immediately after conclusion of the hearing of the Writ Petition pronounced an order on May 5, 1988 allowing the Writ Petition • and stating that the written judgment shall follow later. These are the + reasons given by the Court in support of the said order whereby the ~rt, ~ HELD: The averments made in the grounds of detention are absolutely vague inasmuch as no ;>articulars as to which persons have been robbed or what offences have been ~ommitted by showing deadly D weapons and at what place have not been mentioned. [5778] E F G There is also no mention when and where the detenu in a drunken condition demanded money from whom nor it has been stated when the detenu threatened, whom to murder by showing razor or Rampuri 1__ knife. There is no particular instance also as to which peace loving citizens and in which area the Petitioner has beaten in pul>lic believing, that they are giving information of his criminal activities to the police. It is also a vague statement that the detenu is coming in the way of maintenance of public order. [575G, 576D-G] The grounds and averments made in the grounds which were Jl served on the detenu are vague and as surh they are violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution oflndia. [576H-577 A] Pushkar Mukharjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 SCR 635 at page 641; and Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City & Anr., JT 1988 4 SC 703 at page 710. An act may create a 'law and order' problem but such an act does not necessarily cause an obstruction to the maintenance of public 'f order. [579A] Dr. Ram
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.