Petition against detaining authority is allowed as the authority makes error in interpreting ‘dangerous person’: Gujarat High Court
This particular decision is upheld by the High Court of Gujarat through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY in the case of Keyur v. Police Commr. (R/Special Civil Application No. 4248 of 2021).
Facts:
In the instant case, the petitioner is Keyur and the respondent of the case is Police Commissioner.The instant petition was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat whereby the petitioner is detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985.
Arguments and Judgement:
Advocate for the petitioner had submitted that, mere filing of five FIRs against the petitioner itself was no ground, for the detaining authority, to arrive at the conclusion that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It was further submitted that, no legally sustainable satisfaction was recorded by the detaining authority before passing the impugned order.
Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State Authorities has supported the detention order passed by the detaining authority.
The Court found that the detaining authority had exercised the powers, treating the petitioner as a ‘dangerous person’ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The five FIRs, which were the basis to treat the petitioner as such a person was referred to in the impugned order and further details in that regard were considered by the Court. The Court finally opined that the detaining authority fell in error in treating the activities of the petitioner as prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
It was noted that in the grounds of the detention, the detaining authority had recorded to the effect that, according to him, the activities of the petitioner created a sense of alarm and feeling of insecurity in the minds of public at large, however on weighing this vis-a-vis the material on record, this Court found that, the citation of such words was more in the nature of rituals rather than with any significance to the alleged activities of the petitioner.
The petition was allowed.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
Judgement reviewed by – Arvind Roshan