B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the detenu who has challenged the order of detention dated 9-12-1991 passed by respondent No. 1 herein under the provisions of the gujara Prevention of Anti-Social activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the said Act ). ( 2 ) THE grounds of detention, dated 9-12-1991 were served along with the materials on the same day. In the grounds of detention, it is, inter alia, alleged that four Criminal Cases under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code are registered by Rajpipla Police Station against the detenu in the year 1991. It is also alleged that the petitioner is a headstrong person and he makes assaults and robs the people of the area, armed with deadly weapons and, therefore, the reign of terror prevailed in the area of amletha and thus the petitioner has become an obstruction to the maintenance of public order. Thus, according to the allegations made in the grounds of detention, he is a dangerous person within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order of detention, the detaining authority has considered sections 56 amd 57 of the Bombay Police act while applying its mind with regard to the aspect of lesser drastic remedy. It is stated that the actions under Sections 56 and 57 of the Bombay Police Act were considered by the detaining authority and it is stated in the grounds of detention that much time will be consumed in taking proceedings under Sections 56 and 57 of the Bombay Police Act and that the detenu is likely to continue his activities in the area in which he will reside because of the externment order and taking into consideration these provisions, the detaining authority has passed the detention order under the provisions of the said Act. ( 4 ) NOW, Section 57 of the Bombay Police act cannot apply as per the activities alleged in the grounds of detention because the petitioner is not convicted in a single offence at any time as envisaged by Section 57 of the Bombay police Act. ( 4 ) NOW, Section 57 of the Bombay Police act cannot apply as per the activities alleged in the grounds of detention because the petitioner is not convicted in a single offence at any time as envisaged by Section 57 of the Bombay police Act. Section 57 of the Bombay police Act will apply in a case where the person is convicted of the offence mentions in Section 57 of the Bombay police Act and, therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated because of non-application ot mind. ( 5 ) NO affidavit-in-reply is filed even though the aforesaid specific contention is taken in the petition by the petitioner. In this case, Rule was issued on 8-1-1992 making it returnable on 3-2-1992 and Mr. Shelat, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents waived the service of Rule. ( 6 ) IN our opinion, Section 57 of the bombay Police Act is not at all attracted in the present case because as per the allegations made in the grounds of detention, there is not a single conviction for the offences in which the detenu is said to have been involved. Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act reads as under:"57. Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act reads as under:"57. If a person has been convicted (a) of an offence under Chapter XII, xvi or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or (b) twice, of an offence (i) under Section 9 of the Bombay beggers Act, 1945 or under Bombay prevention of Prostitution Act, 1923, or the Saurashtra Prevention of Prostitution act, 1952, the Hyderabad Suppression of immoral Traffic Act, 1952, the Madhya pradesh Suppression Immoral Traffic act, 1953, or the Suppression of Immoral traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, or (ii) within a period of three years, under section 65 or 68 of the Bombay prohibition Act, 1949, or (c) thrice of an offence within a period of three years, under any of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 or under Section 4 or 12a of the Bombay prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, or under Section 4 or 12a of that Act as in force in the Saurashtra area or the kutch area of the State of Bombay, or under Section 4 of the Gambling Act, or Section 3 of the Public Gambling Act, 1867 as in force in the Vidarbha region of the State of Bombay, the commissioner, the District Magistrate or the Sub-Division Magistrate empowered by the State Government in this behalf, if he has reason to believe that such person is likely again to engage himself in the commission of an offence similar to that for which he was convicted, may direct such person to remove himself outside the area and any district or districts, or any part thereof, continuous thereto by such route and within such time as the said officer may prescribe and not to enter or return to the area or the area and such continuous districts or part thereof, as the case may be, from which he had been directed to remove himself. Explanation - For the purpose of this section an offence similar to that for which a person was convicted shall mean (i) in the case of a person convicted or an offence mentioned in clause (a), an offence falling under any of the chapters of the Indian Penal Code mentioned in that clause, and (ii) in the case of a person convicted of an offence mentioned in clauses (b) and (c), an offence falling under the provisions of the Acts mentioned respectively in the said clauses. "section 57, therefore, is designed to protect the public from the activities of undesirable persons who have been convicted of offences mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, there is no allegation in the grounds of detention that the detenu has been convicted for any of the offences mentioned in clause (a) (b) or (c) of Section 57 and, therefore, section 57 could not have been attracted in this case. Thus, in our opinion, this is a clear case of non-application of mind and, therefore, the satisfaction envisaged by Section 3 of the Act is vitiated. ( 8 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed, the impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required for any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed. .