( 1 ) BY way of this petition, the petitioner- lady detenu, has challenged the order dated 1. 2. 2007 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City, in exercise of powers under section 3 (1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, the Act ) declaring the petitioner to be a "bootlegger" within the meaning of the PASA Act. In pursuance of the said impugned order the petitioner is detained in jail since 1. 2. 2007. ( 2 ) FROM the grounds of detention, it appears that there are five offences - CR. I. No. 93,299, 403,466 of 2006 and CR. I. No. 38 of 2007 registered against the petitioner under sections 66 B, 65 E, 81 etc. under the Bombay Prohibition Act wherein quantity of 3 litres, 30 litres, 14 litres, 14 litres and 12 litres respectively of country liquor was found from her possession. On the basis of registration of these cases, the detaining authority held that the present lady detenu, was carrying activities of selling country liquor which is harmful to the health of the public. It is held by the detaining authority that as she is indulged in illegal activities, it is required to restrain her from carrying out further illegal activities i. e. selling of country liquor. ( 3 ) THE detenu is an illiterate lady. Taking into consideration the quantity of country liquor recovered from her possession, it cannot be said that her activities are dangerous to the situation of public order. Except the aforesaid cases under the provisions of Prohibition Act, no other offence was registered against the present petitioner-detenu. In the opinion of this court, her activities are, by no stretch of reasoning, said to be disturbing the public order or even the public health suffers and such a subjective satisfaction is reached by the detaining authority. It is seen from the grounds that a general statement that has been made by the detaining authority that consuming liquor is injurious to health and except that, nothing is there on record showing that the activities of the petitioner are affecting the public order. In fact, a perusal of the order passed by the detaining authority shows that the grounds which are mentioned in the order are in reference to the situation of law and order and not public order . In fact, a perusal of the order passed by the detaining authority shows that the grounds which are mentioned in the order are in reference to the situation of law and order and not public order . Therefore, on this ground, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated on account of non-application of mind the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 4 ) IN the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki v. Police Commissioner, Surat ( 2000 (1) GLH 393 , having considered the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 740 ), this court held that the cases, wherein the detention order passed on the basis of the statements of the witnesses falls under the maintenance of "law and order" and not public order". ( 5 ) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner-detenu that during the detention period, her husband died and on the next day, her son also died. The detenu, being a lady and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this court, the impugned order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 6 ) IN the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The order of detention dated 1. 2. 2007 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat city, is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.