SH. MUSTAKMIYA JABBARMIYA SHAIKH versus SH. M.M. MEHTA, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

SH. MUSTAKMIYA JABBARMIYA SHAIKH versus SH. M.M. MEHTA, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

There was no material which could reasonably or definitely conclude that the petitioner was habitually engaged in criminal activities or a dangerous person; no incidents constituted acts prejudicial to public order as required under the Act; the authority passed the order without proper application of mind, so the detention order could not be sustained.

Parties
Petitioner: Sh. Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh; Respondents: Sh. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (crl.) No. 335 of 1994 / Decision on Merits
Outcome
Petition allowed, detention order quashed
Legal Topics
Habitual Offenders, Public Order Vs Law and Order, Validity of Detention Orders, Definitions Under Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985
Preventive Detention Criminal Law Constitutional Law Habitual Offenders Public Order Vs Law and Order Validity of Detention Orders Definitions Under Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sh. Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh

Petitioner

Sh. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (crl.) No. 335 of 1994 / Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner was a 'dangerous person' within the meaning of Section 2(C) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985
  2. 2 Whether the detention order was valid with respect to public order as required by Section 3(1) of the Act
  3. 3 Distinction between 'public order' and 'law and order'

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material which could reasonably or definitely conclude that the petitioner was habitually engaged in criminal activities or a dangerous person; no incidents constituted acts prejudicial to public order as required under the Act; the authority passed the order without proper application of mind, so the detention order could not be sustained.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed, detention order quashed

Orders

  • Impugned order of detention quashed
  • Petitioner be released forthwith