1987 (10) TMI 387 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under the PASA Act.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India.
3. Impact of non-compliance with procedural requirements as laid down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy's case.
4. Whether the activities of the petitioner as a bootlegger affected public order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Detention Order under the PASA Act:
The petitioner challenged the detention order dated January 31, 1987, issued under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act). The detaining authority, the District Magistrate of Bhavnagar, was satisfied that the detention was necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner contended that his family members were not informed in writing about his detention and the place where he was to be lodged, thus violating his personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondents countered this by stating that the petitioner's uncle was informed in writing about the detention order. However, the uncle claimed he was not informed about the place of detention, which he only learned about through a letter from the petitioner ten days later.

3. Impact of Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements as Laid Down by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy's Case:
The Supreme Court in A.K. Roy's case had mandated that family members of the detenu must be informed in writing about the detention order and the place of detention. The court noted that while the petitioner's uncle was informed in writing about the detention order, there was no written intimation regarding the place of detention. Despite this, the court held that oral intimation about the place of detention substantially complied with the Supreme Court's mandate, as the primary purpose of the information was to enable the family to take necessary actions, such as making representations or arranging for the detenu's needs.

4. Whether the Activities of the Petitioner as a Bootlegger Affected Public Order:
The court evaluated evidence showing that the petitioner's activities as a bootlegger were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the PASA Act, activities that adversely affect public order include those causing harm, danger, alarm, or a feeling of insecurity among the public. The court found that the petitioner's activities created an atmosphere of terror, necessitating the deployment of armed police and SRP in the locality. This led to the conclusion that the detaining authority was rightly satisfied that the petitioner's activities affected public order.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the detention order dated January 31, 1987. The court found that the procedural requirements under Article 21, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, were substantially complied with, and the detaining authority's satisfaction regarding the petitioner's activities affecting public order was justified. The detention order did not suffer from any vice, and hence, the petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.