1988 (12) TMI 339 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the detention order.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32.
3. Identity of the petitioner.
4. Grounds of detention and their vagueness.
5. Distinction between "law and order" and "public order."

Summary of Judgment:

1. Legality of the Detention Order:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the detention order dated August 3, 1988, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, u/s 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The grounds for detention included allegations of hoarding and selling illegal foreign liquor, creating an atmosphere of fear, and causing hindrance to public order.

2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition under Article 32:
The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution, even though the representation of the petitioner was pending before the Advisory Board. This was supported by the precedent set in Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate, Kamrup, [1974] 1 SCC 103.

3. Identity of the Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed his name was Piyush Kantilal Mehta, not Piyush Kantilal Shah, alleging a deliberate and mala fide detention. The Court found no reason to disbelieve the detaining authority's statement that the petitioner signed as Piyush Kantilal Shah when the order was served. The Court concluded that the petitioner is also known as Piyush Kantilal Shah.

4. Grounds of Detention and Their Vagueness:
The grounds of detention included two criminal cases against the petitioner, allegations of creating fear and terror, and statements from five witnesses. The Court found these allegations to be general and vague, lacking specific incidents to substantiate the claims. The Court emphasized that merely being a bootlegger does not justify preventive detention unless the activities affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, as per section 3(4) of the Act.

5. Distinction between "Law and Order" and "Public Order":
The Court reiterated the distinction between "law and order" and "public order," citing Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, [1969] 2 SCR 635. The Court held that the petitioner's activities did not create a feeling of insecurity or panic among the general public, thus not affecting public order. The grounds of detention were found to be vague and insufficient to justify preventive detention.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned detention order, and directed the immediate release of the petitioner. The grounds of detention were deemed vague, and the allegations did not substantiate a threat to public order.