HARI HARJI GADHVIVI THRO JIGNESH NARANBHAI GADHVIversusDISTRICT MAGISTARTE

     R/SCR.A/4117/2026                           ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4117 of 2026

==========================================================
       HARI HARJI GADHVIVI THRO JIGNESH NARANBHAI GADHVI
                              Versus
                   DISTRICT MAGISTARTE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHAVIN S RAIYANI(3855) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR L B DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                           Date : 06/04/2026

                        ORAL ORDER
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1.     The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained
vide the detention order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the
District Magistrate, Kachchh, as a bootlegger as de$ned under
Section 2(b) 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. Bhavin Raiyani
and Mr. L B Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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
o9ence cannot be said to have either a9ected adversely or


                                Page 1 of 6
     R/SCR.A/4117/2026                                ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




likely to a9ect adverse the maintenance of public order as
contemplated under the explanation sub-section (4) of Section
3 of the Act of 1985 and therefore, where the o9ences 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.

5.     On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the
application contended that, the detenue is habitual o9ender
and his activities a9ected 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 Kachchh.

6.     Having considered the facts as well as the submissions
made by the respective parties, the issue arise 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 petitioner
and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a
reference of one criminal case registered against the petitioner
for the o9ence punishable under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116(b),
81, 83 and 98(2) of Prohibition Act dated 27.09.2025
registered with Mundra Police Station was made and further it


                                    Page 2 of 6
     R/SCR.A/4117/2026                              ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




is alleged that, the activities of the detenue as a “bootlegger”
a9ects      adversely or are     likely      to   a9ect   adversely the
maintenance of public order as explained under Section 3 of
the Act of 1985. Admittedly, in said o9ence, the applicant was
granted bail.

8.     After careful consideration of the material, we are of the
considered view that on the basis of one prohibition case, 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’. In our
opinion, the said o9ence does not have any bearing on the
maintenance of public order. In this connection, we may refer
to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush
Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad,
1989 Supp (1) SCC 322, wherein, the detention order was
made on the basis of the registration of the two prohibition
o9ences. The Apex Court after referring the case of Pushkar
Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal, 1969 (1) SCC 10, held and
observed that mere disturbance of law and order leading to
detention order is thus not necessarily suBcient for action
under preventive detention Act. Paras-17 & 18 are relevant to
refer, which read thus:


        “17. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of this
        Court in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, where
        the distinction between `law and order' and `public order' has
        been clearly laid down. Ramaswami, J. speaking for the Court
        observed as follows:




                               Page 3 of 6
R/SCR.A/4117/2026                               ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




          10.       "Does the expression `public order' take in every
          kind of infraction of order or only some categories
          thereof? It is manifest that every act of assault or injury
          to speci/c persons does not lead to public disorder.
          When two people quarrel and /ght 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 ground that
          they were disturbing public order. The contravention of
          any law always a2ects order but before it can be said to
          a2ect public order, it must a2ect the community or the
          public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of
          demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of
          disorder which directly a2ect the community or injure
          the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of
          peace of a purely local signi/cance which primarily
          injure speci/c individuals and only in a secondary sense
          public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order
          leading to disorder is thus not necessarily su4cient for
          action under the Preventive Detention Act but a
          disturbance which will a2ect public order comes within
          the scope of the Act."


   18. In the instant case, the detaining authority, in our opinion,
   has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti- social
   activities of the petitioner adversely a2ect or are likely to
   a2ect adversely the maintenance of public order. It is true
   some incidents of beating by the petitioner had taken place,
   as alleged by the witnesses. But, such incidents, in our view,



                                Page 4 of 6
      R/SCR.A/4117/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




         do not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order.
         The petitioner may be punished for the alleged o2ences
         committed by him but, surely, the acts constituting the
         o2ences cannot be said to have a2ected the even tempo of
         the life of the community. It may be that the petitioner is a
         bootlegger within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act, but
         merely because he is a bootlegger he cannot be preventively
         detained under the provisions of the Act unless, as laid down
         in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the Act, his activities as a
         bootlegger a2ect adversely or are likely to a2ect adversely
         the     maintenance     of     public      order    We     have     carefully
         considered the o2ences alleged against the petitioner in the
         order of detention and also the allegations made by the
         witnesses and, in our opinion, these o2ences or the
         allegations cannot be said to have created any feeling of
         insecurity or panic or terror among the members of the public
         of the area in question giving rise to the question of
         maintenance of public order. The order of detention cannot,
         therefore, be upheld.”


9.      For the reasons recorded, we are of the considered
opinion that, the material on record are not suBcient for
holding that the alleged activities of the detenue have either
a9ected         adversely   or        likely     to   a9ect       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.

10.     Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. The order
impugned          dated   12.03.2026           passed       by   the    respondent
authority is hereby quashed. We direct the detenue to be set


                                      Page 5 of 6
         R/SCR.A/4117/2026                                                    ORDER DATED: 06/04/2026




  at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Rule
  is made absolute accordingly. Direct service permitted.


                                                                                    (ILESH J. VORA,J)




                                                                                 (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
  TAUSIF SAIYED



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: TAUSIFAHMED SAIYED(HC01401), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/04/2026 16:43:34




                                                   Page 6 of 6