JUDGMENT : K.J. Vaidya, J. The petitioner Rabari Karsan Bavan, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has brought in challenge the impugned order of detention dated 5-11-1990 under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short-PASA) passed by the District Magistrate, Junagadh, inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the same setting him at liberty forthwith. 2. To state few relevant facts briefly, it has been alleged in the grounds of detention that the anti-social activities carried on by the petitioner were of such a nature which clearly fell within the meaning of Section 2(c) of PASA, and that because of the same, had disturbed the public order in the area of Junagadh city. In the grounds of detention, it has been further alleged that as many as four criminal cases have been registered-against him as tabulated in a chart hereunder. Sr. No. Police Station and C.R. No. Under Section Dt. of release on bail Decision 1 Junagadh Ta.141/88 dated 27-10-88 324, 504, 114 IPC. 02/01/89 Pending trial. 2 Junagadh City 52/89 09/05/89 324. 504, 114 IPC. 135 B.P.A. 16.2.89 Proved Copy of judgment annexure 3 Junagadh City 271/89. 16-7-89 325 504, 506(2) 24-7-89 Pending trial. 4 Junagadh City 488/90. 147 148, 149 07/10/90 326 323, 504, 16-10-90 Pending Investigation It has been further alleged that despite the above offences having been registered against the petitioner, he on being released on bail, has continued his anti-social activities in the area. In support of the said allegations, five witnesses while appearing before the police have given their secret statements with a request that as they were afraid of the petitioner putting their lives and properties in danger, the said statements be kept secret. The detaining authority after fully taking into consideration the material placed before it, was satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous person and that in order to prevent him immediately from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, it was necessary to pass the detention order and in that view of the matter, ultimately passed the impugned order of detention dated 5-11-1990. This order was ultimately confirmed by the State Government in due compliance with rest of the provisions contained in PASA. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention before us. 3. Mr. This order was ultimately confirmed by the State Government in due compliance with rest of the provisions contained in PASA. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention before us. 3. Mr. Satish Patel, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order or detention was liable to be quashed and struck down on very many points as raised in the petition, but he would like to place in fore-front the contention which has been taken up in the later part of para-10 of the petition. Mr. Patel inviting our attention to the C.R. No. 52/89 of Junagadh Police Station, which is reproduced at Sr.No. 2 in the tabulated chart above, submitted that though the same was in respect of offences under Sections 324, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, further the same has been shown to have been proved against the petitioner, yet quite surprisingly, on seeing the copy of the judgment and order of the said C.R. No. it appears that the petitioner was convicted only for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and was fined 5/- only. In substance, in the copy of the judgment supplied to the petitioner, it is nowhere shown that he was convicted for the offences under Sections 324, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code Thus, despite such a glaring discrepancy, as between the statement made in the grounds of detention and the copy of the judgment in the said C.R. No. supplied to the petitioner, the detaining authority has mechanically passed the order of detention. It was further contended by Mr. Patel that had the detaining authority seen for himself and examined the copy of the said judgment in C.R. No. 52/89, the vital discrepancy in question would not have crept in the grounds of detention. The fact remains that the impugned order of detention came to be passed in face of two inconsistent disposal of the case, which renders the impugned order of detention illegal and void. 4. As against the above, Mr. The fact remains that the impugned order of detention came to be passed in face of two inconsistent disposal of the case, which renders the impugned order of detention illegal and void. 4. As against the above, Mr. S.D. Patel, the learned A.P.P appearing for the State has taken us through para-8 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the detaining authority, which reads as under : "With reference to para-10 of the petition, I deny one and all allegations and averments made therein. I say that the F.I.R. of C.R. No 52/89 has been considered by me and I have also considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court on 28-1-90. I say that what is necessary for taking action, is involvement in the offence and not only the question of conviction". On perusing the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply, it is not difficult to appreciate that the reply given by the detaining authority is as general and vague as it could be and the same is contrary to the record. In fact, the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply fails to meet with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, the formation of which is the condition-precedent to passing of any detention order, cannot be said to have been reasonably arrived at, as in the copy of the said judgment, there is no reference to the alleged offences under Sections 324, 5C. and 114 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, the said infirmity clearly reflects upon the required subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. It is very likely that had the copy of the said judgment been examined and taken into consideration by the detaining authority, the subjective satisfaction arrived by it could have swung in different direction. Under the circumstances, this being a case of pure and simple non-application of mind, it is not possible for us to sustain the impugned order of detention. 5. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 5.11.1990 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence in jail is required in connection with any other case. Rule made absolute. Petition allowed.