Preventive detention upheld where subjective satisfaction and evasion of arrest supported treating the petitioner as absconding.

Detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act was challenged on the ground that the authority lacked jurisdiction to treat the petitioner as absconding and that no proper inquiry was made before that finding. The Court noted that the record and affidavit showed the petitioner had evaded arrest despite repeated police s, and that the competent authority acted on material leading to subjective satisfaction that he was a bootlegger whose activities were prejudicial to public order. On that basis, the Court found no want of jurisdiction and no ground for interference under Article 226; the detention order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention order under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act warranted interference on the grounds that the petitioner was available at his residence and that the authority lacked jurisdiction to treat him as absconding.

Analysis: The petition challenged the detention order and the subsequent notification on the premise that no proper inquiry was made before declaring the petitioner absconding. The record and affidavit in reply, however, showed that after registration of the offence the petitioner had evaded arrest despite repeated efforts by the police, and the competent authority acted on material forming its subjective satisfaction that the petitioner fell within the definition of a bootlegger and that his activities were prejudicial to public order. In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to hold that the detention order suffered from want of jurisdiction or called for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The detention order was upheld and the petition was rejected.

---