N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THE detention order dated 29-7-1992 passed by the learned District Magistrate Surendranagar as detaining authority under the provisions of Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act 1985 (for short PASA) is sought to be challenged by way of this petition. The detenu has been detained as a dangerous person and in support thereof the detaining authority in the grounds of detention annexure B page 15 has relied on 5 criminal cases registered against the detenu. There is no controversy that they do not relate to Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code Over and above five cases the detaining authority has also relied on statements of as many as 16 witnesses 8 of whom wore called by the detaining authority and their contents were verified by him personally. To this effect is to be found is his affidavit in reply that has been filed at page 31 onwards running into 10 pages. ( 2 ) BASED on the aforesaid material while recording his satisfaction that the detenu is a dangerous person he has also recorded the fact that because of his activities so much fear has been generated in the area and the witnesses to various incidents are not placed to come forward at all and necessarily therefore no complaints have been registered in respect of any of these incidents. Moreover it is also recorded that in keeping with this very situation the witnesses are not coming forward to depose However from the petition and the annexure to it L. A. Mr. Naik has been able to show that in respect of criminal case no. 91 of 1992 a judgment has been delivered on 31 by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Bajana and the incident from which the case had arisen had occurred on 17-1-1992 and by the time the judgment could be delivered the learned Magistrate had examined as many as 7 witnesses. ( 3 ) ON the one hand we have the situation as set out in the grounds of detention that the witnesses are not prepared to come forward to lodge a complaint or to depose against the detenu and on the other hand we have the situation of the trial being conducted and it concluding in a judgment as per Annexure G page 23. ( 4 ) OBVIOUSLY this fact has not been brought to the notice as the detaining authority and that is why in the affidavit in reply which is otherwise exhaustively dealing with the averments made in the petition he has remained completely silent about this aspect In our opinion this was a very vital circumstance which ought to have been brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority namely the District Superintendent of Police Surendranagar. It being a case registered by the police the fact that witnesses were being examined would have come to the knowledge though as rightly pointed out by LAPP Shri Champaneri the judgment is dated 31 that is subsequent to the detention order which is dated 29-7-1992. ( 5 ) THE satisfaction with regard to the activity attributed to the detenu and the effect thereof felt by the people in the area leading to disturbance of public order and disturbing also the even tempo of life in our opinion therefore is clearly vitiated. A large area of controversy was also sought to be raised in this context because the detaining authority after recording his satisfaction under Sec. 9 (2) of PASA has also recorded his conclusion in the grounds of detention that none of the statements of the witnesses would be in the public interest to be given to the detenu. According to LTA. Mr. Naik this is clear violation of art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and this issue was squarely joined by the State when the detaining authority has filed affidavit in reply although as referred to above. However as the petition is allowed we are not entering into this controversy and we are leaving this question open. ( 6 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner-detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required for any other lawful purposes. Rule is made absolute. Petition Allowed. .