JUDGMENT : J. R. Vora, J. By way of this Special Civil Application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25th March, 2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch against the brother of the petitioner, Sabbir @ Sabbo Mehmood Malek, (hereinafter referred to as "the detenu" for the sake of brevity) in exercise of powers conferred upon the District Magistrate vide Section 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act" for short), declaring the detenu to be a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the PASA Act. The detenu came to be detained in pursuance of the order dated 25th March, 2003 on 10th April, 2003. 2. The grounds for detention, which are placed on record and served upon the detenu, clearly reveals that the detaining authority placed reliance on two aspects of the matter. Firstly, the detaining authority relied upon the five offences registered against the detenu under Secs. 66-B, 65-AE, 81, 83 & 116 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, and secondly, the detaining authority relied upon the three statements of the witnesses recorded by the proposing authority in camera on 21st February, 2003, 17th February, 2003 and 7th March, 2003. In these three statements, incidents occurred on 12th February, 2003, 10th January, 2003 and 1st March, 2003 are revealed by the witnesses, whose identities are concealed. The statements are verified by the detaining authority on 17th March, 2003. It is pertinent to note that the detaining authority, in the grounds served upon the detenu, came to the conclusion that the illegal activities of the detenu could not be prevented because the detenu resided in Muslim area. From the above facts, the detaining authority passed the order impugned in this petition. 3. Mr. S.H. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Mita Panchal, learned AGP for the respondents, were heard at length. The learned AGP has placed on record an affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch, the detaining authority, which is also considered. 4. Out of various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and controverted by the learned AGP for the respondents, and from the rival contentions, it appears that the Special Civil Application can be disposed of on the ground that whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated by non-application of mind. 4. Out of various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and controverted by the learned AGP for the respondents, and from the rival contentions, it appears that the Special Civil Application can be disposed of on the ground that whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated by non-application of mind. The detenu has been declared as a bootlegger within the meaning of the PASA Act. The bootlegging activity is defined to be distilling, manufacturing, storing, transporting, importing, exporting, selling or distributing any liquor, intoxicating drug, in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act as per the PASA Act. The bootlegging activity also includes expending or applying any money or supplying any animals, vehicles, vessels or other conveyance or any other material in furtherance or in support of the above described bootlegging activities. When such an activity becomes prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, powers are conferred under Section 3 to the Competent Authority to pass an order under the PASA Act. 5. Now, reverting to the facts of the case, as disclosed by the grounds placed on record, the detaining authority placed reliance upon the registration of offence against the detenu, five in number, as aforesaid, on 15th July, 2002, 14th November, 2002, 13th January, 2003, 11th February, 2003 and 16th February, 2003. On going through the papers, including the FIR of the above said offences, as alleged, it is clear that some bulk of foreign liquor was found from the accused, whose names are mentioned in the FIR, with an allegation that this bulk in each case was either to be delivered to the detenu or pertained to the detenu. While the incidents narrated by the witnesses in camera specify the incidents wherein the detenu is alleged to have forced the witnesses to obtain their vehicles for illegal activities. One of the witness, on refusing, was beaten, for scolding the detenu for his indecent behaviour towards females of the locality. From the above material, the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that the detenu was a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the PASA Act. The cases, which are filed against the detenu, are pending for disposal, as has been shown in the grounds. From the above material, the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that the detenu was a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the PASA Act. The cases, which are filed against the detenu, are pending for disposal, as has been shown in the grounds. So, from the offences registered against the detenu and what is stated by the witnesses, whether there was sufficient material to declare the detenu to be a bootlegger and his activities prejudicial to public order has to be considered. As established by the law that public order means disorder and disturbance in large sections of the society. What is required by the detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction is the material in respect of the disturbance of public order and that too, by bootlegging activities. Now, if both the facts are taken individually, meaning thereby, that fact of registration of offences and fact on record of in camera statements, are taken individually, to reach to the subjective satisfaction, none of the fact is either sufficient to declare the detenu to be a bootlegger or his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Even if both the facts are taken conjointly, cogent material is deficient to reach to subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to declare the detenu to be a bootlegger and his activities to be prejudicial thereby to the maintenance of public order within the meaning of Secs. 2(b) & 3 of the PASA Act. The order impugned in this Special Civil Application, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone that within the meaning of Section 3(1), the activities cannot be said to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 6. In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order passed by the District Magistrate, Bharuch on 25th March, 2003 in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the PASA Act directing the detention of the detenu is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required to be detained for any other purpose. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted. Application Allowed.