H. L. GOKHALE, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER herein is the father of one Sajandas Chelaram Parashwani who has been detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (PASA Act for short) by the order dated 20th July 1993 passed by respondent-Commissioner of Police Vadodara. It was alleged against this Sajandas Chelaram Parashwani that he was a bootlegger and he was involved in two cases which were filed against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 and three statements were recorded against him. The statements were recorded on 14th July 1993 and were verified by the Superintendent of Police C Division Vadodara City. Thereafter the proposal to detain the petitioner was forwarded to the Commissioner of Police on 19th July 1993 and the impugned order came to be passed on 20th July 1993 ( 2 ) ON behalf of the petitioner various submissions have been advanced though the one which is finally pressed and which was found favour with us is that the privilege which the detaining authority has claimed under Section 9 (2) of the PASA Act has not been claimed in accordance with the law laid down by this Court earlier in Bai Amina vs. State of Gujarat 1981 GLR 1186 as confirmed by a Full Bench of this Court in Chandrakant N. Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1994 (1) GLR 761 . ( 3 ) IT has been laid down in the judgment in case of Bai Amina (cited above) that if the exercise of privilege is challenged in a Court of law as vitiated by factual of legal mala fides the bald assertion of the detaining authority that it was not in the public interest to disclose the relevant documents materials and particulars would not conclude the issue. The Division Bench has observed as follows. :-"a mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority to that effect will not preclude the examination of the challenge. A general unspecific and bald averment of public interest is not what the Constitution or the law requires. The Court will have to be satisfied in such a case by an affidavit affirmed by the detaining authority itself that the decision to withhold from the detenu the material documents statements materials and particulars was bona fide and rationally reached by the detaining authority after proper application of mind to each matter and after considering all the relevant aspects. The Court will have to be satisfied in such a case by an affidavit affirmed by the detaining authority itself that the decision to withhold from the detenu the material documents statements materials and particulars was bona fide and rationally reached by the detaining authority after proper application of mind to each matter and after considering all the relevant aspects. "the Court further observed:-"once the affidavit of the detaining authority discloses the grounds and reasons which weighed with it in withholding the documents statements materials and particulars it would be the duty of the Court to examine whether the grounds and reasons have any rational connection with the public interest or whether the detaining authority could have been reasonably satisfied on that basis that the disclosure was not in the public interest. "subsequently the Full Bench has approved this proposition of law in the case of Chandrakant Patel (supra) and has observed in paragraph 7 as follows:-". . . We are also of the opinion that even otherwise also it cannot be said that Bai Aminas case does not lay down good law. As stated above the observation which have been made as to when and how the privilege can be claimed are made with a view to show what can be regarded as proper application of mind to all the relevant aspects; what can be regarded as sufficient for the purpose of claiming privilege; and when exercise of the privilege can be regarded as bona fide. Whether that privilege has been exercised bona fide and properly or not obviously will have to be decided in each case by reference to the facts of that case Whether the detaining authority can be said to have applied its mind to all the relevant aspects properly or not would be a question of fact in each case and will have to be decided with reference to the facts of that case. " ( 4 ) IN the facts of the present case after the aforesaid proposal was made by the officer concerned to the detaining authority from the impugned order as well as the grounds of detention we find that the detaining authority has made the following observations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention:-"you are a dangerous man. You are well-known bootlegger. You are well-known bootlegger. You and your associates are bringing English and country liquor in trucks matador and Maruti van etc. and you are storing them in Varsiya locality after forcibly asking the people in the said locality to keep them and you are also doing anti-social activity of selling liquor and you are also disturbing the public order by creating the atmosphere of terror by beating in public the persons who are not co-operating in your business. ""3. Three witnesses have given the statements in support of the activities referred to in paragraph 2 above. They have also requested to keep their identity secret as they are afraid of you. Therefore I fully believe it reasonable to keep their identity secret in public interest under section 9 (2) of the Act. If the identity of the witnesses is disclosed then possibility of the damage to the persons and property cannot be ruled out. The statements of the witnesses recorded have been duly verified by the Superintendent of Police C Division. Copies thereof are supplied. " ( 5 ) THE detaining authority has filed an affidavit in reply and in paragraph 4 thereof it is stated as follows :"4 With reference to paragraph (E) I say that the statements of witnesses were verified by S. P. C Dn. Vadodara City who is a man of my confidence. I say that the proposal which was placed before me after perusing the same and considering each and every material placed before me I have arrived at a subjective satisfaction for passing the impugned order of detention along with the grounds of detention. I say that I have rightly exercised the privilege under section 9 (2) of the PASA Act in public interest. " ( 6 ) HAVING noted the position of law and the stand of the detaining authority as disclosed through the impugned order along with its affidavit we have to see whether the tests laid down in Bai Amina s case as confirmed by the Full Bench have been followed in the instant case. " ( 6 ) HAVING noted the position of law and the stand of the detaining authority as disclosed through the impugned order along with its affidavit we have to see whether the tests laid down in Bai Amina s case as confirmed by the Full Bench have been followed in the instant case. As laid down in Bai Aminas case it is necessary that after the affidavit is filed by the detaining authority the Court has to be satisfied that the decision to withhold from the detenu the necessary material and information has been rationally reached by the detaining authority after proper application of mind to each matter and after considering all relevant aspects. The statements in paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention which are adopted subsequently in paragraph 3 appear to be primarily based on the statements to the sponsoring authority made by the three witnesses. When we peruse the statements given by the three witnesses we find them to be quite vague and on the basis of those statements and the proposal made by the officer concerned it appears that the detaining authority has arrived its own conclusion. It is difficult to say after reading paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention and paragraph 4 of the affidavit in reply of the detaining authority that the detaining authority has complied with the requirements as laid down in Bai Aminas case as confirmed subsequently by the Full Bench. The detaining authority has in the impugned order stated that it considered the request of the persons concerned to keep their names secret a proper one and in the affidavit in support thereof it has made an assertion that it has rightly exercised the privilege under Section 9 of the PASA Act in public interest. Apart from these two assertions we do not find anything further either in the impugned order or in the supporting affidavit which will indicate a proper compliance with the requirements that will justify keeping away the names of the persons concerned who had given their statements against the detenu. The impugned order therefore will have to be held as vitiated by legal mala fides. The impugned order therefore will have to be held as vitiated by legal mala fides. ( 7 ) SINCE the impugned order is vitiated by legal mala fides it will have to be quashed and set aside as the privilege claimed by the detaining authority under Section 9 (2) of the PASA Act has not been properly exercised. That being the position the impugned order of detention is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if not required for any other reasons. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition Allowed. .