JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:-----The detention order came to be passed by the Detaining Authority of the Union Territory on 17-2-99 and on 18-2-99 a communication was issued by the said Detaining Authority containing the grounds of detention, which was served on the detenu on or about 24-2-99. Thereafter on or about 25-2-99 an order was issued by respondent No. 1 wherein it was stated that the respondent No. 1 satisfied that the detenu was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and that therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3(3) of the said P.A.S.A Act the respondent No. 1 approved the said order of detention. The said order was served on the detenu on 29-2-99. 2.Being aggrieved by the said order of detention and the grounds on which it is purported to have been issued, the petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu Ishwarbhai Babubai Patel, has filed this petition challenging the said detention order and its validity. 3.It is an accepted position that detention is based entirely on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The provisions of the detention power relied on by the Detaining Authority is the one that was given as per the Government of India Notification and Gazette dated 25th September, 1995 whereby the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 came to be extended to the Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The aforesaid Gujarat Act was modified to deal with the situation in the Union Territory. However, initially the provision of the said Act remained the same as could be seen from definition clause, section 2 as also the power conferred on the Administrator under section 3 thereof. 4.The case of the Detaining Authority is that the detenu was a bootlegger as defined under section 2, Clause (b). With regard to this there was abundant material. 5.However, when one comes to subjective satisfaction, if it has been confined only to alleged bootlegging activities the matter could have been different. However, the satisfaction as recorded in para 3 of the grounds of the impugned order, as can be seen from page 27, it seems that bootlegging activities are also the matter of Public Order. The said para 3 is quoted hereunder: "3. I am subjectively satisfied that you are a bootlegger and thereby a perpetual danger to the Society at large. The said para 3 is quoted hereunder: "3. I am subjectively satisfied that you are a bootlegger and thereby a perpetual danger to the Society at large. You have created feeling of insecurity among the General Public of Daman District by your said activities. Your said activities are wide-spread danger from Public Health point of view. Thus, your activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order in Daman District." 6.As can be seen from the first three lines, the satisfaction as to the detenu being a bootlegger, there is material. However, thereafter in order to draw a conclusion that feeling of insecurity among general public of Daman District has been created except for registration of cases under Goa, Daman and Diu Excise Duty Act 1964 there is nothing. No doubt, there is material found indicating towards the continuing bootlegging activities of the detenu. 7.The learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the explanation clause of sub-section 4 of section 3 of the said Act, which reads as under: "Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-section, public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia if any of the activities of any person referred to in this sub-section 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, property or public health." 8.In our opinion, however, the latter ground of the explanation itself indicates that the Detaining Authority has to have a material to show that the activities are causing or are likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among general public. We are conscious of the fact that they should be of distinct nature. The Detaining Authority has chosen to rely on the feeling of insecurity among general public. With regard to this, there is no indication in the activities as accepted by the Detaining Authority to have before him in accordance with the said explanation. 9.Once this aspect is taken into consideration, it is quite obvious that satisfaction stands vitiated. The very detention order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10.In the result, petition is allowed. The detention order is quashed and set aside. 9.Once this aspect is taken into consideration, it is quite obvious that satisfaction stands vitiated. The very detention order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 10.In the result, petition is allowed. The detention order is quashed and set aside. The detenu Ishwarbhai Babubhai Patel to be released forthwith if not required for any other purpose. Petition allowed. -----