PIYUSH KANTILAL MEHTA versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD CITY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 16-12-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
> 
PIYUSH KANTILAL MEHTA 
V. 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, AHMEDABAD CITY AND 
ANOTHER 
DECEMBER 16, 1988 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.) 
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985-Sections 2 
and 3-Detention Order-Validity of-Merely because a person is. a 
bootlegger he cannot be preventively detained-Activiiies should effect 
adversely maintenance of public order. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 32-Detention Order-
Assai/ment of-Permissible by writ petition even though representation 
of detenu pending before Advisory Board. 
A 
B 
c 
The petitioner filed a writ petition cha'itenging the legality of the 
D 
order of his detention passed by the respondent nnrler sub-section (2) of 
Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities, Act, 1985. 
In the grounds of detention, it was alleged that the petitioner was a 
prohibition bootlegger, indulging in use of force and violence, and by 
illegal sale of liquor the petitioner created an atmosphere of fear and 
terror by beating innocent citizens, thus indulging in anti-social 
E 
activities which were against public order. The detention order also 
indicated that he was prosecuted in two criminal cases under the Excise 
Act and was acquitted in one case and the other case was pending. 
In his writ petition to this Court the petitioner contended that the 
grounds of detention were vague and there was nothing to show that his 
F 
activities either affected or are likely to affect adversely the main-
tenance of public order, and that it is not sufficient to allege that he is a 
bootlegger to warrant his detention. 
The respondent challenged the maintainability of the writ petition 
in view of the pendency of the representation of the petitioner before the G 
Advisory Board and also contended that the grounds were not vague 
being supported by statements of the witnesses. 
Allowing the writ petition and quashing the order of. detention, 
and directing the release of the petitioner, this Court, 
1081 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: A person may be very fierce by nature, but so long as the 
public generally are not affected by his activities on conduct, the 
question of maintenance of public order will not arise. In order that an 
acitivity may be said to affect adversely the maintenance of public 
order, there must be material to show that there has been a feeling of 
insecurity among the general public. If any act of a person creates panic 
or fear in the minds of the members of the public upsetting the even 
tempo of life of the community, such act must be said to have a direc.t 
bearing on the question of maintenance of public order. h089H; 1090A-B] 
The Commission of an offence will not necessarily come within the 
purview of 'public order'. [I090B] 
Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635, 
relied on. 
In the instant case, the detaining authority has failed to sub-
stantiate that the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner adversely 
effect or are likely to .affect adversely the maintenance of public order. 
It is true some incidents of beating by the petitioner had taken place, as 
alleged by the witnesses. But, such incidents do not have any bearing on 
the maintenance of public order. [ 1090H; I 09IA] 
It may be that the petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of 
section 2(b) of the Act, but merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot 
be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid 
down in sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, his activities as a J;>ootleg-
ger ·affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of 
p~blic order. [109IB] 
Even though a representation is pending before the Advisory 
Board, the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is main-
tainable before this Court. [I 086B I 
Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup, [1974] 
I S,C.C. 103, relied on. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 
403 of 1988. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
H 
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Yatin N. Oza, P.H. Parekh and Soni! Dogra 
for the Petitioner. 
·• -
"'· 
., 
. i 
.·• 
,. 
P.K. MEHTA v. COMMR. OF POLICE [DUTf, J.[ 
1083 
P.S. Poti, Mrs. H. Wahi and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DUTT, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the 
legality of the order of his detention dated August 3, 1988 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.