2010 (5) TMI 947

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the case, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. By way of the present petition, petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention dated 30.12.2008 passed by the respondent no.1. Second prayer sought is to stay the implementation and execution of the detention order dated 30.12.2008 and the notification dated 4.7.09 and to direct the respondent to place the order of detention and the grounds of detention against the petitioner and to initiate contempt proceedings for violation of binding judgments of the High Court. 3. Learned advvocate Mr. N.M. Kap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., J.], dated 14.5.2009 in Special Civil Application No. 3169 of 2009 by which the Special Civil Application filed by Kishor @ Kishu Murubhai Vala was allowed and the impugned order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City was quashed and set aside. Learned advocate, thus, submitted that in view of the aforesaid order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner also deserves to be granted the same relief as prayed for in the petition. 4. Learned advocate has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the submissions canvassed at the bar. The same are as under:- [1] Alpesh Navinchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, reported in [2007] 2 Supreme Court Cases 777; [2] Dee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here was sufficient material to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is indulging in the activities as bootlegger which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, even though the petitioner is involved in solitary offence, there was sufficient material to arrive at a subjective satisfaction of the competent authority to come to a conclusion that the activities of the petitioner were detrimental to public order and, therefore, the order was passed within the meaning of Section 3[2] of PASA Act. Learned AGP further submitted that even the warrant for absconding petitioner was issued on 11.6.09, because, inspite of the efforts made right from 31.12.2008 to 11.6.200....