JUDGMENT 1. HEARD learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. THIS petition is directed against the order of detention dated 30.7.2008 passed by respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 (1)/3 (2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (in short" the Act) by detaining the detenue as a "bootlegger" as defined under Section 2 (b) of the Act. Learned advocate for the detenue restricted his arguments to the extent of order of detention and submits that registration of FIR/s itself cannot lead to disturbance of even tempo of public life and therefore the public order. The order of detention is assailed by the detenue on various grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. However, learned counsel for the detenue has focused his arguments mainly on the ground that except two offences registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, there was no other material before the detaining authority whereby it could be inferred reasonably that the detenu is a 'bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act and required to be detained as the detenue's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. In support of the above submission, learned counsel for the detenue has placed reliance on relevant observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta vs. Commissioner of police, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 491 and the Judgment and order dated 22.8.2000 of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: M. R. Calla and R. R. Tripathi, JJ.), in Letters Patent Appeal No. 223 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No. 554 of 2000 (Ashok Balabhai Makwana vs. State of Gujarat) which would squarely help the detenue. Learned advocate for the detenue further submits that no affidavit-in-reply is filed by the State Government. 3. LEARNED advocate for the detenue submits that the detenue asked for the important material like FSL report from the detaining authority but the authority failed to provide the same and his right to make an effective representation has been violated. In view of the above, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that antisocial activities carried out by the detenue are detrimental to public order stands vitiated and order of detention based on such satisfaction deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. In view of the above, subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority that antisocial activities carried out by the detenue are detrimental to public order stands vitiated and order of detention based on such satisfaction deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader submitted that registration of two offences would go to show that the detenue had, in fact, indulged into such activities, which can be said to be disturbing the public health and public order. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that there was sufficient material before the detaining authority to pass the order of detention and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record of the case, I am of the view that two criminal case/s registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act alone cannot be said to be sufficient enough to arrive at subjective satisfaction to the effect that the activities, as alleged, are prejudicial to the public order. The registration of FIR/s under Bombay Prohibition Act ipso facto does not lead to disturbance of public order. There has to be nexus and link for such activities with disturbance of the public order. The activities of the detenue must, in the backdrop of the facts, reflect that such activities disturbed or likelihood of disturbing the tempo of normal life of society or general peace and tranquility or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality. 5. ON careful perusal of the material available on record and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra) and the Judgment and order dated 22. 8. 2000 of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: M. R. Calla and R. R. Tripathi, JJ.), in Letters Patent Appeal No. 223 of 2000 in Special Civil Application No. 554 of 2000 (Ashok Balabhai Makwana vs. State of Gujarat), I am of the view that the activities of the detenue cannot be said to be in any manner prejudicial to the public order and therefore, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. IN the result, the petition is allowed. 6. IN the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 30.7.2008 passed by the respondent No. 1, is quashed and set aside. The detenue, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.