SHARAD D. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) BY filing this petition, the petitioner detenu has challenged the detention order dated 17. 2. 2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Nadiad District Kheda in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 ( the Act for short), as, the Detaining Authority found that the detenu is a bootlegger and is required to be detained under the preventive detention, so that, he may not continue with such type of illegal activities. Along with the detention order, the detenu was also served with the grounds of detention of the same date. In the said grounds, there is a reference to two criminal cases which are filed under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act. In the grounds of detention, the statements of certain witnesses have been recorded. ( 2 ) AT the time of hearing of this petition, it is argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the last case was registered against the petitioner on 5. 1. 2005, yet the detention order is passed after a period of more than one month, as, it was passed on 17. 2. 2005. It is submitted that in order to cover up the delay, statements of so called secret witnesses are recorded by the authority. In support of his argument, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Elesh Nandubhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Police, 1997 (1) GLH 381 wherein this Court has observed in para 21 as under. :"21. In the instant case, the last registered case is of May 20, 1996. The petitioner detenue was granted anticipatory bail by the competent Court. He was also granted regular bail subsequently. The impugned order of detention has been passed on November 05, 1996 i. e. After a delay of 5 months and 15 days. It is of course true that the detaining authority relied on two incidents of 2nd October and 10th October, 1996, both unregistered cases. I have gone through the allegations. I fail to understand if the allegations are really of such a grievous nature, why the cases have not been registered against the petitioner. It is of course true that the detaining authority relied on two incidents of 2nd October and 10th October, 1996, both unregistered cases. I have gone through the allegations. I fail to understand if the allegations are really of such a grievous nature, why the cases have not been registered against the petitioner. There appears to be some substance in the contention of the petitioner that these two unregistered cases have been referred only with a view to cover up the gap or to give life to a stale case. This unexplained delay makes a ground of detention not proximate, vitiating the order of detention itself. If I am to buttress my findings, I would say the reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Prakash V. State of U. P. Reported in AIR 1990 SC 516 and Pradeep Nilkanth V/s S. Ramamurthy reported in 1993 (2) Supp. SCC 61. " ( 3 ) IT is submitted that it can be presumed that subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated on the ground of delay in passing the detention order after the last incident and on this ground alone, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 4 ) ON the other-hand, Mr. Bhate, learned AGP has tried to support the impugned detention order passed against the petitioner. No Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in this petition. Normally, reply is required to be filed in such type of cases controverting the averments made in the petition, otherwise, it can be presumed that the averments made in the petition are correct. The averment regarding delay has been made in para 3 (11) of the petition and the same has gone uncontroverted. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the judgments referred to above, in my view, it is clear that there is a delay in passing the detention order from the date of the last criminal case registered against the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I have no option but to quash and set aside the detention order on the ground that there is a delay in passing the detention order after the last incident i. e. On 5. 1. 2005. In view of what is stated above, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 17. 2. Under the circumstances, I have no option but to quash and set aside the detention order on the ground that there is a delay in passing the detention order after the last incident i. e. On 5. 1. 2005. In view of what is stated above, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 17. 2. 2005 is quashed and set aside. The detenu Chandrakant @ Lalo Amratlal Soni is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. .