1989 (3) TMI 389 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985.
2. Consideration of previous quashed detention grounds for the current detention order.
3. Requirement of fresh facts for passing a subsequent detention order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Detention Order:
The petitioner challenged the detention order dated 21.10.1988, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. The detaining authority justified the order on grounds of preventing the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order in Nanpura Machhiwad, Surat City. The State of Gujarat approved and confirmed the order on 26.10.1988 and 13.12.1988, respectively. The detenu's representation against the order was rejected on 19.12.1988 and 21.12.1988 by the respective authorities.

2. Consideration of Previous Quashed Detention Grounds:
The detaining authority referenced a prior detention order dated 2.1.1987, which had been quashed by the Gujarat High Court on 3.8.1987. The grounds for the previous detention were included in the current detention order to establish the detenu's long-term involvement in bootlegging activities. The detaining authority admitted in the affidavit that the previous grounds of detention were considered to show the detenu's continued illegal activities.

3. Requirement of Fresh Facts for Subsequent Detention Order:
The Supreme Court emphasized that a subsequent detention order must be based on fresh facts, especially when the previous order was quashed by a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari. The Court cited several precedents, including Ghulam Nambi Zaki v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, and Ibrahim Bachu Bafan v. State of Gujarat, to support the principle that fresh grounds are necessary for a new detention order. The Court concluded that the detaining authority's reliance on quashed grounds invalidated the current detention order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the inclusion of previously quashed grounds in the current detention order vitiated the order. The detaining authority's subjective satisfaction was partly based on nullified grounds, rendering the detention order invalid. The Court quashed the detention order and directed the immediate release of the detenu, provided there were no other grounds for detention.

Judgment:
The petition was allowed, and the detention order was set aside. The detenu was ordered to be released forthwith if not required for any other case.