R. M. DOSHIT, J. ( 1 ) TO 6. [xxxx] ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( 5 ) ( 6 ) ( 7 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is whether the activities carried on by the petitioner can be said to he prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is indisputable that the petitioner is alleged to have been indulging in the activities of manufacturing and selling of country liquor and other anti-social activities. Such activities of bootlegging has under Sec. 3 (4) of the Act, been deemed to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The explanation to the said sub-section provides, inter alia, that for the purpose of the said sub-section, public order shall be deemed to have affected adversely, if such activity directly or indirectly is causing or is likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life or property or public health. 7. 1 In the matter of Dilipbhai Devasibhai Vaghari [supra], the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that, mere commission of an offence or offences under the Bombay prohibition Act cannot be said to be an act detrimental to public order or acts on accounts of which public order was disturbed or is likely to be disturbed. In the matter of Amrat ramabhai Vaghari [supra] also, the learned. Single Judge having considered the provisions contained in Sec. 3 (4) of the Act has taken a view that even under the extended meaning of the words maintenance of public order under Sec. 3 (4) and the explanation thereto, the bootlegging activity would not tantamount to acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 7. 2 It is obvious that the provisions contained in Sec. 3 (4) of the Act was not brought to the notice of the Court in the matter of Dilipbliai Devasibhai Vagri [supra]. Further, the earliest Division Bench judgments in the matters of Popat Molina [supra] and chandulal Jethlal Javswal [supra] were also not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge in the matters of Dilipbhai Devasibhai Vagri [supra] and Ammt Ramabhai vaghari [supra]. Further, the earliest Division Bench judgments in the matters of Popat Molina [supra] and chandulal Jethlal Javswal [supra] were also not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge in the matters of Dilipbhai Devasibhai Vagri [supra] and Ammt Ramabhai vaghari [supra]. In the matters of Popat Mohan [supra] and Chandulal Jethalal [supra], the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the order of preventive detention made under the Act on account of the concerned detenus dealing in illicit country liquor by manufacturing, storing and selling the same to the people. The Court considering the provisions contained in Sec. 3 (4) of the Act and the explanation therto gave an extended meaning to the words public order. The Court held that for the purpose of the said sub-section, the term public order had been given extended meaning under the explanation thereto. The Court further held that consumption of country liquor by a large number of people itself is a danger to the t Deleted as per instruction of Honble Gujarat High Court. public health. This is a matter of commonsense and such a reasonable inference has got to be drawn by having recourse to the experience of life. In the matter of chandulal Jethalal Jayswal [supra], it is held that, . . . . It is, therefore, clear that if there is any activity of a boot legger which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order within the enlarge meaning of Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 3 of the Act that would be the material on the basis of which subjective satisfaction can be arrived at. The Court further held that, . . . when the petitioner was not having any licence as provided under the Rules, the legitimate inference that can be drawn on the facts and circumstances of the case is that he was storing the same with an intention to sell it to the bootleggers who would use it after diluting the same as country liquor [lattha] contrary to the provisions of the Act and relevant rules. 7. 3 The bench in both the above referred judgments have relied upon earlier supreme Court judgment in the matter of Rajendrakumar Natverlal Shah v. State of gujarat and Ors. [ air 1988 SC 1255 ] 7. 7. 3 The bench in both the above referred judgments have relied upon earlier supreme Court judgment in the matter of Rajendrakumar Natverlal Shah v. State of gujarat and Ors. [ air 1988 SC 1255 ] 7. 4 The aforsaid judgments of the Division Bench of this Court are, in my view, the binding precedents which ought to be followed. It is, however, apparent that neither of the aforesaid judgments was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge deciding the aforesaid cases, in the matters of Dilipbhai Devasibhai [supra] and Amrat Ramabhai [supra]. Both the above referred judgments, therefore, are per incuriam. On the facts of the present case, both of the above judgments of the Division Bench shall squarely apply. The petitioner, herein who is indulging into manufacturing and selling of country liquor, shall be deemed to have acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He, therefore, can lawfully be detained under the Act. ( 8 ) THIS takes me to the third contention. It is contended that the information in respect of the identity of the witnesses has wrongly been withheld without verifying whether there had been any necessity to withhold such information from the petitioner. Upon perusal of the papers, it appears that the concerned police officer who recorded the statements of witnesses has verified the statements given by the witnesses and also the genuineness of the apprehension voiced by such witness. Besides, even the detaining Authority, the District Magistrate, has made a categorical statement on oath that he had carefully examined and had personally verified the genuineness and correctness of. the statements of witnesses. He was satisfied that the apprehension voiced by the witnesses were genuine and that there identity was required to be withheld from the petitioner. However, the said statements are not supported by the material on record. The same, therefore, cannot be believed. The necessity of such verification by the Detaining Authority himself has been dealt with in extenso by this Court in the matter of Bai Atnina, Wd/o. Ibrahim Abdul Rahim Alia vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. [ 1981 0 GLR 1186 ]. However, the said statements are not supported by the material on record. The same, therefore, cannot be believed. The necessity of such verification by the Detaining Authority himself has been dealt with in extenso by this Court in the matter of Bai Atnina, Wd/o. Ibrahim Abdul Rahim Alia vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. [ 1981 0 GLR 1186 ]. The Court on facts held that, failure to disclose the names of persons who made the statements which are relied upon in the second ground has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner by denial to her of the right of effective representation against the detention. The Court further held that, the Detaining ( 9 ) AUTHORITY must itself be satisfied that it is against the public interest to make such discloser. In the present case also, the Detaining Authority has casually stated about his personal verification which is not supported by the material on record. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment, this lapse on the part of the Detaining Authority shall vitiate the order of detention. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons recorded hereinabove, the order of detention, Annexure-A to the petition, is quashed and set-aside. The petition is allowed. The petitioner, unless required in some other case, be set free. Rule is made absolute. .