judgement:
etition (Criminal) No. 485 of 1988.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
T.U. Mehta and S.C. Patel for the Petitioner.
G.A. Shah, Mrs. H. Wahi and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.C. RAY, J.
The petitioner has questioned in this writ petition the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention made on October 12, 1988 by the respondent No. 1 under sub.
section 1 of sec.
3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city.
The petitioner was detained by the respondents and was served with the grounds of detention alongwith the documents mentioned therein on the very day of detention that is, October 12, 1988.
The grounds of detention were in Gujarati.
The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that he was previously detained under the S.R. No./PCB/ DTN/PASA/37/85 on May 23, 1985 and was released on June 28, 1985.
The petitioner had been detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to in short, as 'PASA Act '.
The said order was challenged by writ petition before the Guja rat High Court which quashed the same and the petitioner was released from detention.
The main thrust of challenge to the impugned order of detention is that the detaining authority in addition to new facts has taken into consideration the earlier two detention orders as well as the grounds of detention referred to therein presumably for the purpose of arriving at his subjective satisfaction that inspire of the earlier detention order which was of course, quashed and set aside the detenu has been persistently continuing his anti social activities and as such the order of detention was clamped.
This has vitiated the impugned order of detention.
Other challenges such as non disclosure of names and ad dresses of four witnesses whose statements have been men tioned with the grounds of detention and have been served alongwith the grounds as well as the vagueness of the state ments made in the grounds about the alleged criminal activi ties of the detenu has rendered the order illegal and bad as the petitioner was prevented from making an effective repre sentation against the same.
586 The relevant portion of the grounds are extracted hereunder: "You are indulged into anti social activities by selling stocking and keeping in possession of yourself or through other person the Eng lish and Deshi liquor of Dariapur area in this connection the offences under Bombay Prohibi tion Act.
1949 are registered against you, wherein you were arrested, the details of which is as under: S.No.
Police Office Section Stock Disposal Station Regis Seized ter No. Dariapur 106/88 Prohibition 7575 ml.
under Act, sections 66(3), English investi 65(A), (E), 68, 5 Lt. Deshi gation 81, 85(1)(3) Liquor.
Rs. 1971.
Dariapur 120/88 Prohibition 8640 mi.
under Act, secs.
English investi 66(3), 65(A), liquor.
gation.
(E), 68, 81, 85(1)(3).
Rs. 940.
137/88 Prohibition 3 105 mi.
" Act, secs.
English 66B, 65(E), liquor.
81, Rs. 940.
" 145/88 " 166 bottles. " English liquor.
Rs. 1300.
" 146/88 Prohibition 82 Lt.
" Act, section 66B, English 65E. liquor.
Rs.800.
Accordingly, upon careful perusal of the complaint and papers enclosed with the propos al it appears that you are a Prohibition Bootlegger, and doing illegal activity of selling English and Deshi liquor.
You and your companions are beating and showing deadly weapons like Rampuri knife to 587 the innocent persons passing through the said locality on the promise of being 'Batmidar ' of police.
And you are beating the person who oppose your activity of liquor, you are com pelling to bring stock of liquor to the Motor Vehicles like Auto Rickshaw and upon denial to do so, you threat to kill him by Rampuri knife your customers who are drunken are teasing to the women passing from there, and if any one oppose or request not to do so, your threats showing Rampuri knife to kill to the innocent persons are and an atmosphere of danger and violence is spread over because of your such offensive activities and as you are doing acts which are obstructive in maintaining public administration.
You are an obstruct in main taining public administration.
You are an obstruct in maintaining public administration in view of the fact and result of your above stated anti social activ ities, and fact of such instances are also stated by the peace loving people doing busi ness in the above area, copies of their state ments are given to you herewith.
As your offensive activities are ob structive in public administration you were detained under NASA 1980 by this office order No. PCB/DTN/NSA/37/85 date 23.5.85 and were released from detention on 28.6.85.
And your offensive activities are ob structive to the maintenance to public admin istration that you were detained under PASA Act, 1985 by this office order No. PCB/DTN/PASA/36/86 dt.
26.9.86, as you have filed writ petition in the Honourable Gujarat High Court against this order the Honourable High Court has on 25.6.87 passed an order to release you from detention.
Accordingly, looking to the overall fact, I am satisfied that you are prohibited bootlegger and known a headstrong and angry person, and an atmosphere of fear and violence is spread over in residents of the said local ity because of your above anti social activi ties, such activities cannot be refrained by taking steps under the common law.
" The affidavit of reply affirmed by Mr. S.N. Sinha, Commis sioner 588 of Police, Ahmedabad city has been filed on December 7, 1988.
In paragraph 4, it has been stated that in fact the petitioner belongs to the gang of Abdul Latif and has not at all been falsely prosecuted in any case, it has also been submitted that the petitioner was not good and was involved in activities which affect the society adversely.
In para graph 9 of the said affidavit it has been denied that the grounds are not relevant for the purpose and the present detention order has been passed totally on a different and fresh grounds.
It has also been submitted therein that it is absolutely wrong to say that the earlier two orders passed against the petitioner were illegal in any manner.
Out of the two detention orders, order of 1985 was passed under the in view of the fact of public riots in the Ahmedabad city and order of 1986 was passed on the ground of the petitioner .being bootlegger and dangerous person on account of pendency of certain prosecution and both of which were passed by his predecessor and therefore, the said orders have nothing to do with the present orders.
It has been further submitted that it is absolutely wrong to say that the sponsoring authority has not submitted the earlier order of release of the petitioner by the Board and the Gujarat High Court.
The grounds of detention make it abundantly clear that this fact was clearly considered and thereafter the detention order has been passed and there fore, there is no substance in the contention that the decision of detention would have been different if the earlier orders of release would have been placed before him.
The most important question that posed itself for con sideration in this case is whether the detaining authority while considering the fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of detention has taken into consideration the earlier two detention orders one of 1985 under the and the other of 1986 under the PASA Act in forming his subjective satisfaction that the detenu inspite of the passing of the earlier two detention orders has been per sistingly indulging in his anti social activities and as such in preventing such criminal activities which posed a threat to the maintenance of public order the impugned order of detention has been made by him.
It is now well settled by the decision of this court while considering the scope of section 15 of PASA Act that the modification and revocation of detention order by the State Government shall not bar making of another detention order on fresh facts when the period of detention has come to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention.
Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of this court in Abdul Latif Abdul Waheb Sheikh vs
B.K. Jha and Anr., [1987] 589 2 SCC 22 and in Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar vs Shri N.L. Kalna & Ors., JT 1989 1 SC 572 it is therefore, clear that an order of detention cannot be made after considering the previous grounds of detention when the same had been quashed by the court, and if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consideration while forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in making a detention order the order of detention will be vitiated.
It is of no consequence if the further fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of the impugned detention order have been considered.
In the present case, admittedly in the grounds of deten tion specific reference has been made to the earlier two orders of detention made in 1985 and 1986 against the peti tioner.
It is also evident that in the schedule of documents annexed to the grounds of detention not only the copies of the order of detention but also of the grounds of detention in the earlier detention cases have been given to the peti tioner.
It also appears from the statements made in the grounds of detention that the detaining authority took into consideration the previous grounds of detention as well as the orders made therein even though the same were nullified by the High Court as well as by the Advisory Body, presuma bly, for the purpose of showing that the detenu inspire of those earlier orders of detention was continuing his boot legging activities.
It has been tried to be contended on behalf of the detaining authority that though the earlier two detention orders have been mentioned in the grounds of detention and the copy of the orders passed in the previous detention cases as well as the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu yet these were not at all considered by him in forming subjective satisfaction for clamping the order of detention.
This submission cannot be sustained in view of the statements made in the grounds of detention.
The other grounds regarding the vagueness of the aver ments made in the grounds about the petitioner indulging in criminal activities apart from the five criminal cases lodged under the Prohibition Act and mentioned in the ground of detention do not satisfy the requirements envisaged in section 3(1) of the PASA Act in as much as the said five specific criminal cases have no connection with the maintenance of public order.
The aforesaid criminal activity does not appear to have disturbed the even tempo of life of the people of Ahmedabad City or of the particular locality.
Further more the averments have been made in the grounds are; "Accordingly, upon careful perusal of com plaint and 590 papers enclosed with the proposal it appears that you are a prohibition bootlegger, doing illegal activity of selling English and Deshi liquor.
You and your companion are bearing and showing deadly weapons like Ram puri knife to the innocent persons passing through the said locality on the promise of beating 'Batmider ' of police.
And you are beating innocent persons who oppose your activity of liquor etc.
" These statements are vague and without any particulars as to what place or when and to whom the detenu threatened with Rampuff knife and whom he has alleged to have beaten.
These vague averments made in the grounds of detention hereinbe fore are bad in as much as the detenu could not make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.
As such the detention order is illegal and bad.
It is pertinent to refer to the decision of this court in the case of Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 15/1989 (judgment of which has been pronounced today) on this score.
It is no, necessary to consider and decide other questions raised in this writ petition.
For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of detention made against the petitioner.
We direct the respondents to set free the petitioner forthwith.
G.N. Petition allowed.

summary/full:
The petitioner was detained on October 12, 1988 under Section 1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activi ties Act, 1985.
The grounds of detention and documents mentioned therein were served on him on the date of deten tion.
Earlier, the petitioner was detained in 1985 under the and was released.
Again in 1986 he was detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985.
On a writ petition, the Gujarat High Court quashed the detention order and released him.
These two detention orders were also taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority in arriving at his subjective satis faction as regards detention of the petitioner in 1988.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has chal lenged the detention order passed on 12.10.88 on the grounds that the order was vitiated since the Detaining Authority relied upon earlier detentions in arriving at his subjective satisfaction, non disclosure of names and addresses of witnesses whose statements were mentioned in the grounds of detention and the vagueness of the statements made in the grounds of detention.
On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that though the earlier two detention orders were mentioned in the grounds of detention they were not considered by him in forming his subjective satisfaction for clamping the order of detention.
Allowing the Writ Petition.
HELD: 1.
It is now well settled that while considering the scope of 584 Section 15 of the Act the modification and revocation of detention order by the State Government shall not bar making of another detention order on fresh facts when the period of detention has come to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention.
But an order of detention cannot he made after considering the previous grounds of detention when the same had been quashed by the court, and if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consid eration while forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in making a detention order, the order of detention will he vitiated.
It is of no consequence if the further fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of the impugned detention order have been considered.
[588F G, 589A.B] Abdul Latif Abdul Waheb Sheikh vs B.K. Jha and Anr., ; and Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar vs Shri N.L. Kalna & Ors., JT 1989 1 SC 572, relied on.
In the instant case, admittedly in the grounds of deten tion specific reference has been made to the earlier two orders of detention made in 1985 and 1986 against the peti tioner.
The contention that though the earlier two detention orders have been mentioned in the grounds of detention and the copy of the orders passed in the previous detention cases as well as the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu, yet these were not at all considered by the detaining authority in forming his subjective satisfaction for clamping the order of detention, cannot he sustained in view of the statements made in the grounds of detention.
[589C E] 3.
The other grounds regarding the vagueness of the averments made in the grounds about the petitioner indulging in criminal activities apart from the five criminal cases lodged under the Prohibition Act and mentioned in the grounds of detention do not satisfy the requirements envis aged in section 3(1) of the Act inasmuch as the said five specif ic criminal cases have no connection with the maintenance of public order.
The aforesaid criminal activity does not appear to have disturbed the even tempo of life of the people of the particular locality.
These statements are vague and without any particulars and such vague averments made in the grounds of detention are bad inasmuch as the detenu could not make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.
As such the detention order is illegal and bad.
[589F H] Abdul Razak Nanhekhan Pathan vs The Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr., , referred to.


judgement:
(Crl.) No. 15 of 1989.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
T.U. Mehta and S.C. Patel for the Petitioner.
G.A. Shah, M.N. Shroff and K.M.M. Khan for the Respond ents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.C. RAY, J.
We have already pronounced in Court on May 5, 1986 the order allowing the writ petition and stating there in that the written judgment will follow later on.
Pursuant to this, are passing the judgment embodying reasons.
This writ petition is directed against the order of detention made under section 3(1) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985, mainly on the grounds that the grounds are not germane and relevant and there has been non application of mind by the detaining authority in making the said order.
The detenu was arrested and kept in Sabarmati Central Jail on 572 October 5,: 1988 under the impugned detention order made on October 5, 1988 by the respondent No. 1, Shri S.N. Sinha, Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City and the grounds had been served on him.
The detenu immediately thereafter made representations to the detaining authority as well as to the State Govern ment and also to the Advisory Board against the impugned order of detention questioning the legality and validity of the detention order.
But uptil now he has not received any intimation in respect of his aforesaid representation.
The detenu thereafter challenged the impugned order of detention before this Court by the instant Writ Petition No. 15 of 1989for quashing the same.
Before proceeding to consider on merit it is necessary to quote excerpts of the grounds of detention.
"That in the Shahalam Chandola Tank area you, with the help of your companions, are committing acts affecting human body as shown in Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code with the help of Rampuri knife, Razor etc.
You are creating atmosphere of terror and danger by causing injuries and by showing lethal weapons to innocent citizens.
You are known as dangerous and terrible person in the said area.
Therefore you are a 'dangerous person ' as defined under section 2(c) of the said Act and you are, by creating atmosphere of danger and terror, becoming hurdle in the way of maintenance of law and order in the said area.
For such acts of yours the following criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code have been registered in the police record against you.
The details thereof are as under: section No. Police Stn.
Crime R. No. Section Result 1.
Kagdapith 96/85 324,504, 114 Compounded IPC, 135(1) B.P. 2.
Maninagar 120/86 Secs.
336,337, Compounded 427, 114 IPC 3.
Kagdapith 225/87 Sec.
135(1) B .P.
Conviction 4.
Maninagar 122/86 Secs.
307/451, 147, 148, 149,436, 440, 1208 IPC, 25C Arms Act, 3, 4, Explosive.
Not proved.
573 5.
Maninagar 33/88 Sec.
324, 504, Under in 114 IPC, 135(1) vestigation.
B.P. Act.
Kagdapith 51/88 307,232, 114 IPC Under in 135(1) B.P. Act.
vestigation.
Kagadapith 81/88 326, 114 IPC, Under in 135(1) B.P Act vestigation.
Thus, on scrutiny of the complaints, proposals and other papers therewith, it appears that you are committing of fences affecting human body in the said area by holding deadly weapons such as knife, razor, tamancha, sword, hockey stick, iron pipes etc.
Therefore, you are a dangerous person as defined in section 2(c) of the said Act.
Further, you are robbing persons who pass from there for business or service by showing deadly weapons.
In the said area in drunken condition you are demanding money from those passing from there.
If they do not give money you are threatening them of murder by showing razor of Rampuri knife.
You are beating peace loving citizens in the said area in public believing that they are giving information of your activities to the police.
By this you are coming in the way of maintenance of public order.
Particulars in support of your aforesaid anti social activities have been given by four persons residing in the said area or doing trade or business in the said area in their statements.
Copies thereof are given herewith.
Being afraid of you.
the aforesaid witnesses have asked not to disclose their names and addresses, because they are afraid of damage to their person and property and their safety and on reliable inquiry it is found to be true.
Therefore, you are not given names and addresses of those witnesses as provided in section 9(2) of PASA ACT, 1985 however contents of the facts states by them are given to you." ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " "Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts, I am fully satisfied that you are committing offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and affecting to human body.
You are a notorious, terrible and dangerous person.
Due to such activities of yours public order is disturbed very often in the said area.
By such activities you have 574 become hurdle in maintenance of public order.
" The respondent No. 1 has thus referred to seven criminal cases filed against the petitioner and also the statements of four persons residing in the area recorded by the police.
The respondent No. 1 has also made averments in the grounds alleging various anti social activities of the petitioner and after considering the same made the impugned order of detenu on forming an opinion that the petitioner is a dan gerous person within the meaning of section 2(c) of the said Act.
The names and addresses of the four witnesses have not been disclosed claiming privilege under section 9(2) of 'PASA ' Act.
As regards the seven criminal cases, the detenu has been acquitted of the charges ,in the first two cases that is, Kagdapith case No. 96/85 and Maninager case No. 120/86 which have been compounded, In the third case under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, that is, Kagdapith case No. 225/87, the detenu has been convicted.
But it has no relevance for the purpose of forming an opinion that the petitioner is a dangerous person .under section 2(c) of PASA Act.
As regards the case No. 4, that is criminal case No. 122/86, the petitioner has been acquitted.
The other three criminal cases that is Maninagar case No. 33/88, Kagdapith case No. 51/88, & Kagda pith case No. 81/88 are all under investigation and in these cases the petitioner has been enlarged on bail.
It has also been stated that the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner are vague and indefinite and as such the detenu could not make an effective and proper representation under article 22(5) of the Constitution.
It has further been stated that out of the aforesaid seven criminal cases, the first two criminal cases are not proximate to the date of making the impugned order of detention.
There is absolute non application of mind by the detaining authority in coming to his subjective satisfaction that the impugned order was necessary to be made to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The respondent No. 1, filed an affidavit in reply stat ing inter alia that the petitioner detenu is indulging in criminal activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and as such the order of detention was made against the detenu after considering that recourse to ac tions under the provisions of ordinary law will not be adequate.
It has been further denied in paragraph (d) of the said affidavit the statement that no effective representa tion could be made due to non supply of the names and ad dresses of the so called witnesses and other relevant mate rials as made in the petition.
It has also been stated that on the basis of the apprehension expressed by those four witnesses 575 whose statements have been recorded by the Police Inspector and verified by the Superintendent of Police that their names and addresses have not been disclosed by the detaining authority claiming the privilege available under section 9(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of AntiSocial Activities Act, 1985.
It has also been stated that the detaining authority has been subjectively satisfied that the petitioner is indulging in nefarious activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such the impugned order of detention was made by him against the detenu It has also been stated that in Criminal Case No. 225/87, the detenu was found with razor and he was convicted in that particular case.
It has also been.
stated that from the cases registered against the detenu from 1985 to 1988 that the detenu is involved in prejudicial activities from 1985 to 1988 and as such it was inferred that the passing of detention order was the only remedy to restrain the petitioner from indulging in similar prejudicial activities.
It is evident from the grounds of detention that the impugned order of detention was made on the ground that the petitioner is a dangerous and terrible person in the area as defined in section 2(c) of the PASA Act.
The said section states: "dangerous person" means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, during a period of three successive years habitually commit, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the (54 of 1959).
" In the grounds, it has been stated that the detenu by creat ing atmosphere of danger and terror has become hurdle in the way of maintenance of law and order in the said area.
It has also been stated that for such acts as well as due to the following criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code registered against him, the detenu has become a dangerous person of the area.
It has also been stated that the detenu has been robbing persons who pass from there for business or service by showing deadly weapons.
It has also been stated, "In the said area in drunken condition you are demanding money from those passing from there.
If they do not give money you are threatening them of murder by showing razor or Rampuri knife.
You are beating peace loving citizens in the said area in public believing that they are giving informa tion of your criminal activities to the police.
By this you are coming in the way of maintenance of public order.
" 576 It has already been stated hereinbefore that offences under Chapter XVI of Indian Penal Code have been compounded.
and the detenu has been acquitted.
As regards the third case that is, Kagdapith case No. 225/87 under section 135 of Bombay Police Act, the petitioner was convicted.
This offence is not one of the offences falling within the offences men tioned in section 2(c) of the PASA Act and as such this case cannot be taken into consideration to hold the detenu a dangerous person.
As regards the fourth case Maninagar case No. 122/86, being not proved against the petitioner he has been acquitted of the offences charged in the said case.
The other three remaining cases that is, Maninagar case No. 33/88, Kagdapith case No. 15/88 and 81/88 are all under investigation.
Therefore, the fourth case in which the petitioner had already obtained acquittal could not be taken into consideration.
For the purpose of determining the petitioner as a dangerous person, it is also very relevant to notice that section 2(c) defines dangerous person as a person who habitually commits or attempts to commit offences pun ishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of Indian Penal Code or any of the offences under Chapter V of the .
From the aforesaid seven criminal cases, two cases are of 1985 and 1986 which are not proximate to the date of the order of detention and so stale.
Moreover, the petitioner being acquitted the said cases could not be taken into consideration.
Similarly case No. 3 also fails outside the purview of the section 2(c) of the said Act.
Fourth case No. 122/86 can also not be considered as petitioner earned acquittal.
Merely on consideration of the other three crimi nal cases which are under investigation and are yet to be decided the detaining authority cannot come to his subjec tive satisfaction that the detenu was a dangerous person who habitually indulges in committing offences referred in section 2(c) of the PASA Act.
The other averments made in the said grounds and referred to hereinbefore are absolutely vague in as much as no particulars as to which persons have been robbed or what offences have been committed by showing deadly weapons at what place have not been mentioned.
There is also no mention when and where the detenu in a drunken condition demanded money from whom nor it has been stated when the detenu threatened whom to murder by showing razor or Rampuri knife.
There is no particular instance also as to which peace loving citizens and in which area the petitioner has beaten in public believing, that they are giving infor mation of his criminal activities to the police.
It is also a vague statement that the detenu is coming in the way of maintenance of public order.
Similarly the statement of the said four witnesses mentioned in the grounds of detention are also very vague and without any particulars of the names of the four witnesses and their addresses were not dis closed.
These statements are also 577 vague.
In such circumstances, it is not at all possible for the detenu to make a proper and effective representation except merely denying the alleged grounds of detention as mandatorily required under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
This ArtiCle confers on a detenu two fundamental rights namely, (1) that the detaining authority has to communicate to the detenu the grounds as early as possible on which the order of detention has been made and secondly the right to make an effective representation against the said order.
This obviously requires that the grounds must not be vague but must be specific, relevant in order to enable the detenu to make an appropriate and effecting representation against the same before the Advisory Board as well as before other authorities including detaining author ity.
The grounds and the averments made in the grounds which were served on the detenu are Vague and as such they are violative of the article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
It is pertinent to refer in this connection the decision re ported in Pushkar Mukharjee & Ors.
vs The State of West Bengal, ; at page 641. "Similarly, if some of the grounds supplied to the detenu are so vague that they would virtually deprive the detenu of the statutory right of making a representation, that again may make the order of detention invalid.
" That has been referred to have been relied upon in the subsequent decision in the matter of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City & Anr., JT 1988(4) SC 703 at page 710.
"It was held by this Court that the ground was extremely vague and gave no particulars to enable the petitioners to make an adequate representation against the order of deten tion and it infringed the constitutional safeguard provided under article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
" In the case of Pushkar Mukharjee, the ground No. 2 states: "You have become a menace to the society and there have been disturbances and confusion in the lives of peaceful citizens of Barnset and Khardah P.S. areas under 24 Parganas District and the inhabitants thereof are constant threat of disturbances of public order.
" It was held in this case that, "It is manifest that this ground is extremely vague and gives no particulars to enable the petitioner to make an adequate representation against the order of detention and thus infringes the constitutional safeguard provided under article 22(5).
" 578 The second crucial question that fails for consideration in this case is whether the grounds of detention particular ly referring to the seven criminal cases are relevant and germane grounds for passing of an order of detention under section 3(1) of the PASA Act.
All the seven criminal cases men tioned relate to problem of law and order and not public order in as much as they disclose cases relating to particu lar persons which has nothing to do with the maintenance of public order.
As has already been said hereinbefore that out of the seven criminal cases, two have been compounded and in the fourth case the criminal charges have not been proved against the petitioner as such he was acquitted.
The third case being under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act does not fall within the purview of the section 2(c) of the Act and it is ' confined to a private individual.
The other three cases which are under investigation also relate to assault to private individuals and they have nothing to do with the disturbance of even tempo of the life of the community or of men of a particular locality nor does it affect the even flow of life of the public as a whole.
Section 3(1) clearly mandates that the order of detention can be made only when the State Government or its authorised officer has come to a subjective satisfaction that a person is required to be detained in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
Sub section 4 embodies a deeming clause to the effect that a person should be deemed to act in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order when such person is engaged in any activities as a dangerous person which affect ad versely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order.
Explanation 2 clause 4 further provides that for the purpose of this sub section public order shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia if any of the activities of any person referred to in this sub section directly or indirectly, is causing or is likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or wide spread danger of life, property or public health.
Coming to this particular case, the criminal cases mentioned in the grounds do not refer to any dangerous, harmful or adverse act or alarm which gives rise to a feeling of insecurity for the general public amongst the persons of a locality.
The criminal cases are confined to certain private individuals and it is merely a law and order problem and it has nothing to do with maintenance of public order.
Its reach and effect is not so deep as to affect the public at large.
It does not create or tend or create any panic in the mind of people of particular locality or public in general nor it affects adversely the maintenance of public order.
There is nothing to show that the above activities of the petitioner have 579 affected or tended to affect the even tempo of fife of the community.
An act may create a law and order problem but such an act does not necessarily cause an obstruction to the maintenance of public order.
The difference between 'the law and order and public order has been very succinctly stated by this Court in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar & Ors., [966] 1 SCR 709 at page 746 wherein it has been stated that: "It will thus appear that just as "public order" in the rulings of this Court (earlier cited) was said to comprehend disorders of less gravity than those affecting "security of State" "law and order" also comprehends disor ders of less gravity than those affecting "public order".
One has to imagine three concentric circles.
Law and order represents the largest circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents security of State.
It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State.
But using the expression, "maintenance of law and order" the District Magistrate was widening his own field of action and was adding a clause to the Defence of Indian Rules.
" In Pushkar Mukharjee vs State of West Bengal, (supra), it has been stated that: "It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder.
When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder.
Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the grounds that they were disturbing public order.
The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large.
In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disor der which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest.
A mere disturbance of law and order leading to.
580 disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act.
A District Magistrate is therefore entitled to take action under section 3(1) of the Act to pre vent subversion of public order but not in aid of maintenance of law and order under ordinary circumstances.
" It has also been observed in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs The Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, (supra) that: "The allegations made against the petitioner may give rise to a question of law and order but, surely, they have nothing to do with the question of public order.
A person may be very fierce by nature, but so long as the public generally are not affected by his activities or conduct, the question of maintenance of public order will not arise.
In order that an activity may be said to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, there must be materials to show that there has been a feel ing of insecurity among the general public.
If any act of a person creates panic or fear in the minds of the members of the public upset ting the even tempo of life of the community, such act must be said to have a direct bearing on the question of maintenance of public order.
The commission of an offence will not necessarily come within the purview of 'public order '.
" Our attention has been drawn to the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration, In that case in the grounds of detention thirty six criminal cases have been referred to showing the prejudicial activi ties of the detenu leading to public disorder.
This Court in considering these series of criminal cases committed by the detenu held that the detenu appears to have taken a life of crime and become a notorious character.
The fact that the petitioner and his associates are facing trial or the mat ters are still under investigation only shows that they are such dangerous characters that people are afraid of giving evidence against him.
The armed holdup gangsters in an exclusive residential areas of the city where persons are deprived of their belongings at the point of knife or re volver reveal organised crime.
The particular acts enumerat ed in the grounds of detention clearly show that the activi ties of the detenu, cover a wide field and fall within the contours of the concept of public order.
The 581 grounds furnished were also neither vague nor irrelevant or lacking in particulars or were not inadequate or insuffi cient for the objective satisfaction of the detaining au thority.
Considering these, this Court held in the particu lar facts and circumstances of that case that the order of detention made by the detaining authority after being sub jectively satisfied that the acts of the detenu hinder the maintenance of public order.
The facts and circumstances of that case are distin guishable from the facts of the present case and as such it has got no application.
There is nothing in this case to show that the petitioner was a member of a gang which are engaged in criminal activities systematically in a particu lar locality and those create a panic and a sense of insecu rity amongst the residents of that particular area in con sideration of which the impugned order was made.
Considering the above decisions, we are unable to hold that the criminal cases mentioned in the grounds and the statements of the witnesses referred to in the vague and irrelevant grounds of detention do not in any way pose a threat to the maintenance of public order nor it disturbs the even tempo of public life as envisaged in section 3(1) of PASA Act.
So there has been complete non application of mind by the detaining authority before reaching a subjective satisfaction to make the im pugned order of detention.
It has been urged on behalf of the detenu that there has been no consideration by the detaining authority of the relevant facts and circumstances before making an order under section 9(2) of the PASA Act in not disclosing the names and addresses of the witnesses on whose statements the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at.
It has also been stated in this connection that in the grounds of deten tion it has merely been stated, "Being afraid of you the aforesaid witnesses have asked not to disclose their names and addresses because they are afraid of persons.
It has been urged with force that this ground does not refer that the detaining authority has himself considered and satisfied that the disclosure of their names and addresses are likely to cause damages to their person and properly.
It has been stated by the detaining authority that on relevant enquiry, it found those statements to be true and as such the names and addresses of those witnesses have not been given to the detenu is provided in section 9(2) of the PASA Act, 1985.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is nothing to show that the detaining authority has himself considered that in public interest the names and addresses of these persons should not be disclosed and so such non disclosure is vague.
We do not want to enter into this controversy and decide the same as in our opinion the 582 detaining authority has been satisfied not to disclose the names of those witnesses under section 9(2) of the said Act.
No other grounds have been urged before us on behalf of the petitioner.
For the reasons aforesaid, we hold the order of deten tion is legal and bad and as such we allow the writ peti tion.
The order of detention is quashed and set aside and the detenu is set free forthwith.
Lal Petition allowed.

dataset_name: IN-Abs

summary/full:
By the present petition the Petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the detention order passed by the Respondent against him under Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985.
The detenu was arrested and kept in Sabarmati Central Jail on 5.10.1988.
The detenu immediately thereafter, made represen tation to the detaining authority as well as to the State Government as also to the Advisory Board against the deten tion order but he having not received any reply, he filed this Writ Petition.
The grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu inter alia mentioned that by reason of various crimi nal acts committed by him with the help of his companions which included looting of persons, causing injuries by lethal weapons, he had become a terror in the area and as such a dangerous person within the meaning of section 2(c) of the said Act.
Grounds also enumerated seven criminal cases which had been registered against the detenu.
The detenu was stated to have committed offences affecting haman body by holding deadly weapons such as razor, knife, Tamancha, Sword, Hockey stick etc.
It was specifically mentioned that if the passers by refused to pay to the detenu the money as demanded by him, he used to threaten them of murder by showing weapons.
It was also stated in the grounds that particulars of detenu 's anti social activities were given by four persons of the area, who did not desire that their names he disclosed which were accordingly not disclosed claiming: privilege in that behalf.
Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts the detaining authority felt satisfied that the detenu has been committing offences punishable under I.P.C. and that due to those activities of the detenu, public order was disturbed, he having become a hurdle in the main 570 tenance of public order.
This is how the detention order referred to above came to be passed.
The Petitioner challenged the detention order principal ly on two grounds, viz.,.
(i) that the grounds of detention are not germane and relevant as they are vague lacking in material particulars and (ii) that there has been complete non application of mind by the detaining authority in making the order of detention.
The Court immediately after conclusion of the hearing of the Writ Petition pronounced an order on May 5, 1988 allow ing the Writ Petition and stating that the written judgment shall follow later.
These are the reasons given by the Court in support of the said order whereby the Court, HELD: The averments made in the grounds of detention are absolutely vague inasmuch as no particulars as to which persons have been robbed or what offences have been commit ted by showing deadly weapons and at what place have not been mentioned.
[577B] There is also no mention when and where the detenu in a drunken condition demanded money from whom nor it has been stated when the detenu threatened, whom to murder by showing razor or Rampuri knife.
There is no particular instance also as to which peace loving citizens and in which area the Petitioner has beaten in public believing, that they are giving information of his criminal activities to the police.
It is also a vague statement that the detenu is coming in the way of maintenance of public order.
[575G, 576D G] The grounds and averments made in the grounds which were served on the detenu are vague and as such they are viola tive of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
[576H 577A] Pushkar Mukharjee & Ors.
vs The State of West Bengal,[969] 2 SCR 635 at page 641; and Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City & Anr., JT at page 710.
An act may create a 'law and order ' problem but such an act does not necessarily cause an obstruction to the mainte nance of public order.
[579A] Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar & Ors., ; at page 746.
571 The criminal cases in the instant case are confined to certain private individuals and it is merely a 'law and order ' problem and it has nothing to do with "maintenance of public order".
Its reach and effect is not so deep as to affect the public at large.
It does not create or tend to create any panic in the mini of the people of a particular locality or public in general nor it affects adversely the maintenance of public order.
There is nothing to show that the activities of the Petitioner have affected or tended to affect the even tempo of life of the community.
[571G 572A] It has been stated by the detaining authority that on relevant inquiry, it found the statements to he true and as such the names and addresses of those witnesses have not been given to the detenu as provided in Section 9(2) of the PASA Act, 1985.
The Court did not enter into that controver sy as in its opinion the detaining authority was satisfied not to disclose then names of those witnesses.
[581G 582A] Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration, ; not applicable distinguished.