In a significant ruling by the Gujarat High Court, the detention order against Ahmed @ Goli Rehmatkhan Pathan has been quashed. The Court found that the order, issued by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, lacked adequate justification for impacting public order. This decision sets an important precedent for cases involving preventive detention and public order concerns in the region.
Facts
- The petitioner, Ahmed @ Goli Rehmatkhan Pathan, was preventively detained by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, under the Act of 1985.
- The detention order was passed on 01.01.2024 based on the petitioner being deemed a ‘dangerous person’ as per the Act.
- The petitioner has challenged the legality of the detention order in this petition.
Issue
- The issue at hand is the sustainability of the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority under the Act of 1985
- The detention order was executed on the applicant
- The question is whether the order of detention is legally valid
Arguments
- The advocate for the detenue argues that the grounds of detention are related to law and order, not public order.
- The registration of the offence does not impact public order as per the Act of 1985.
- The detenue’s actions are said to only affect law and order, not public order.
- The State Counsel asserts that the detenue is a habitual offender whose activities impact society.
- The Detaining Authority issued the order based on the detenue’s past activities to prevent any actions prejudicial to public order in Ahmedabad.
Analysis
- The detaining authority failed to substantiate that the petitioner’s alleged anti-social activities affect public order.
- The incidents of beating by the petitioner occurred as alleged by witnesses.
- Being a bootlegger does not warrant preventive detention unless activities affect public order as per the Act.
- The authority wrongly concluded the detenue’s activities were prejudicial to public order based on two criminal cases.
- The criminal cases do not impact public order, and offenders should be dealt with under ordinary criminal law.
- The fact that the petitioner got bail in all the offenses shows they do not affect public order.
- The offenses may lead to punishment but do not disrupt the community’s normal life.
- Distinction between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ explained in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal case.
- In the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, detention order was based on registration of two prohibition offences.
- Mere disturbance of law and order is not sufficient for action under preventive detention Act.
- Detention order requires disturbance that affects public order.
- The alleged offences and allegations against the petitioner did not create a sense of insecurity, panic, or terror among the public in the area.
- The activities of the detenue did not adversely affect or have the potential to adversely affect the maintenance of public order.
- The material on record was found to be insufficient to justify the detention order based on the grounds of public order.
- The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was deemed illegal, invalid, and not in accordance with the law.
- The petition was allowed based on the above considerations.
Decision
- The order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the respondent authority has been quashed.
- The detenue is directed to be set at liberty immediately, unless needed in another case.
- The rule has been made absolute accordingly.
Case Title: AHMED @ GOLI REHMATKHAN PATHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/SCA/453/2024
