MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) ). The petitioner who is the detenu has challenged the order of detention, dated 13-9-1990 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city, under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities act, 1985. The order is annexed at Annexure "a" to the petition. The petitioner was supplied with the grounds of detention on 13-9-1990 along with documents. ( 2 ) ). It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the Commissioner of police was satisfied that the petitioner is a bootlegger and his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city. He was also satisfied that with a view to preventing him from carrying on the said prejudicial activities, it was necessary to pass an order of detention. In the grounds of detention, it is alleged that three cases under the Prohibition act registered in Kagdapith Police Station and the statements of witnesses relating to the incidents disclosed that as a result of the bootlegging activities of the petitioner, breach of public order had taken place. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that taking action under Sec. 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act would not serve the purpose. It is further that no action could have been taken under Sec. 57 of the Bombay Police act as there was no material to show that the petitioner had been convicted thrice under the Bombay Prohibition Act. ( 3 ) ). The learned Advocate for the petitioner urged that looking to the material placed before the detaining authority and the ground of detention, he he ought to have considered whether an action under Sec. 56 of the Bombay police Act would have served the purpose or not. In the grounds of detention it is stated that the petitioner is describing himself as "dada" and that his acts had created fear and alarm in the minds of the persons of the locality where he was operating. On this material, an order of exterment could have been passed under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that less drastic remedy with a view to preventing the petition from carrying on the alleged prejudicial activity was not considered by the detaining authority and, therefore, the impugned order of detention be quashed. ( 4 ) ). The learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that less drastic remedy with a view to preventing the petition from carrying on the alleged prejudicial activity was not considered by the detaining authority and, therefore, the impugned order of detention be quashed. ( 4 ) ). The learned Advocate for the petitioner invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhupatbhai @ Undardo v. Commissioner of Police, Vadodara, in Special Criminal Application No. 1344 of 1989 decided on 6-3-1990 (Coram : G. T. Nanavati and K. J. Vaidya, JJ.)and urged that the detaining authority must consider before passing an order of detention whether lesser preventive measure like exterment would have been sufficient or not. On similar facts, in the aforesaid case the Court quashed and set aside the order of detention. ( 5 ) ). In our opinion, the detaining authority must consider, before passing an order of detention, whether lesser preventive measure like exterment under Sec. 56 of the Bombay Police Act would have been sufficient or not and this aspect admittedly had not been considered and therefore, the petition is required to be allowed. ( 6 ) ). In view of the above position, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order of detention. The petitioner is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with some other case. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. .