Gujarat High Court
Mahebubbhai Husenbhai Rangrej Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat on 19 June, 2024
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2741/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2741 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
MAHEBUBBHAI HUSENBHAI RANGREJ THRO RAFIKBHAI HUSENBHAI
RANGREJ
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
O I PATHAN(7684) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR LB DABHI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 19/06/2024
Page 1 of 5
Downloaded on : Fri Jun 21 22:19:35 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2741/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. The petitioner herein namely Mahebubbhai Husenbhai
Rangrej came to be preventively detained vide the
detention order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Police
Commissioner, Ahmedabad, as a "common gaming
housekeeper" as defined under Section 2(bb) of the
Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985
(herein after referred as 'the Act of 1985).
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the
legality and validity of the aforesaid order.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. O.I. Pathan and
Mr. LB Dabhi, learned AGP for the respondent State.
4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the
grounds of detention has no nexus to the "public order",
but is a purely a matter of law and order, as registration of
the offence cannot be said to have either affected
adversely or likely to affect adverse the maintenance of
public order as contemplated under the explanation sub-
section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, 1985 and therefore,
where the offences alleged to have been committed by the
detunue have no bearing on the question of maintenance
of public order and his activities could be said to be a
prejudicial only to the maintenance of law and order and
not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2741/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the
application contended that, the detenue is habitual
offender and his activities affected at the society at large.
In such set of circumstances, the Detaining Authority,
considering the antecedents and past activities of the
detenue, has passed the impugned order with a view to
preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order in the area of
Ahmedabad.
6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions
made by the respective parties, the issue arises as to
whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining
Authority in exercise of his powers under the provisions of
the Act of 1985 is sustainable in law?
7. The order impugned was executed upon the applicant and
presently he is in Vadodara Central Jail. In the grounds of
detention, a reference of two criminal cases registered
against the applicant under Sections 4 and 5 of the
Prevention of Gambling Act registered with Shaherkotda
Police Station on 03.09.2023 and 09.12.2023 was made
and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue
as a "common gambling housekeeper" affects adversely
or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public
order as explained under Section 3 of the Act of 1985.
Admittedly, in all the said offences, the applicant was
granted bail.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2741/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
8. The term 'Common Gaming Housekeeper' defined under
Section 2(bb) reads as under:
"common gaming house keeper" means a person
who, having bean convicted of an offence
punishable under section 4 of the Bombay
Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, within a period of
three years from the date of such conviction either
by himself or as a member or leader of a gang
habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets
me commission of an offence punishable under that
section;
9. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that, there is no material placed before
the authority to establish that the applicant was convicted
of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Gambling
Act within a period of 3 years from the date of such
conviction either himself or as a member or leader of
game habitually commits or attempts to commit or abate
the commission of an offence under the said section. Thus,
therefore, we are of the firm view that, the activities as
alleged would not fall under the definition of 'common
gaming housekeeper'. In such circumstances, the
authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction
that the activities of the detenue could be termed to be
acting in a manner 'prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order'.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2741/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/06/2024
undefined
10. For the reasons recorded, we are of the considered opinion
that, the material on record are not sufficient for holding
that the alleged activities of the detenue have either
affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the
maintenance of public order and therefore, the subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be
said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned dated 08.01.2024 passed by the respondent
authority is hereby quashed. We direct the detenue to be
set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other
case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service
permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
P.S. JOSHI
