Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the order of detention dated 11.06.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City in exercise of powers under Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), whereby the petitioner has been detained as bootlegger for indulging in activities of transporting and selling the illicit liquor as stated in detail in the grounds of detention dated 11.06.2010. 2. Learned Counsel Mr. H.R. Prajapati for the petitioner referred to the grounds of detention supplied with the order of the detention and submitted that it is a case of single solitary incident for which Prohibition Case being C.R. No. 5118 of 2010 has been registered with Naroda Police Station against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 66(B), 65(A)(E), 81, 116, 1(B) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a settled legal position that merely for registration of single solitary offence, no order of detention under the Act could have been passed as the petitioner cannot be branded as bootlegger without any antecedent. He further submitted referring to the grounds of detention that it is also stated with regard to the activities, and on the basis of this, the order of detention has been passed by Respondent No. 2. The learned Counsel Mr. Prajapati further submitted that the activities of the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudicial or injurious to the public health or the public order. He referred to the provisions of the Act and submitted that the impugned order is not supported by the material and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2.1. Learned Counsel Mr. Prajapati also referred to the affidavit in reply and submitted that in the reply filed by Respondent No. 2 it has been contended that, ‘after subjectively satisfying that the anti-social and bootlegging activities of the detenu cannot be curbed or prevented immediately by resorting to less drastic remedy of taking action under the ordinary law, as a preventive measure, the order of detention has been passed under the PASA Act with a view to immediately prevent him from continuing such illegal, anti-social and bootlegging activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’. However, he submitted that mere registration of one prohibition offence without any antecedent would not give sufficient justification for passing the order of detention. The learned Counsel Mr. Prajapati submitted that as there are no other offences established, the provisions of Section 57(c) of the Bombay Police Act could not have been resorted to which suggest that there are no antecedents. The learned Counsel Mr. Prajapati referred to and relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble the Apex Court reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court Page 491 and 2000 (1) GLH P. 393. The learned Counsel Mr. Prajapati submitted that except single offence there is no other antecedent and the quantity is small and therefore the activities of the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudicial or injurious to the public health or the public order and therefore the present petition may be allowed. He, therefore, submitted that considering the settled legal position regarding protecting the liberty of the citizen of India, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the present petition may be allowed. 3. Learned AGP Ms. Mini Nair has referred to the affidavit-in-reply and pointly referred to the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner along with the order of detention and submitted that the petitioner was indulging in the activity of transporting and selling of illicit liquor in the State which is prohibited. She emphasized the provisions of the Act and submitted that the case of the petitioner would be covered under the definition of ‘bootlegger’ as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the Act. She also referred to the activities indulging by the petitioner to suggest as to how it could be said to be prejudicial to the public interest and also public order. For supporting the submission, the learned AGP has referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent No. 2 and emphasized that subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Authority as stated in the affidavit and it has been specifically stated that, ‘after subjectively satisfying that the anti-social and bootlegging activities of the detenu cannot be curbed or prevented immediately by resorting to less drastic remedy of taking action under the ordinary law, as a preventive measure, the order of detention has been passed under the PASA Act’. The learned AGP, therefore, submitted that all the aspects have been considered. The learned AGP, therefore, submitted that all the aspects have been considered. The learned AGP further submitted that even though no other offence is established against the petitioner, his activities are required to be considered based on the material and it cannot be said that it would not cause prejudice to the public health. Learned AGP submitted that the State is having a Prohibition Law and the bootlegging activities have the potential to disturb the maintenance of public order and it may also adversely affect the public health and therefore it cannot be said that the order of detention is passed without considering all the relevant material and the subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the Authority after considering the material. The learned AGP, therefore, submitted that even though the quantity seized from the petitioner may be small and there may be a single solitary incident as sought to be canvassed, it will have to be considered in light of the provisions of the Act coupled with the fact that the State is having prohibition and therefore considering the fact and the provisions of the Act, present petition may not be entertained. The learned AGP further submitted that as stated in the affidavit there are sufficient cogent material on record of the case so as to indicate the indulgence of the petitioner in the anti-social and bootlegging activities which have the potential to disturb the maintenance of public order. The learned AGP, therefore, submitted that present petition may not be entertained. Learned AGP has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1999(2) GLH Supreme Court P. 415 and emphasizing on Para 5 submitted that the judgment in case of Piyush Mehta reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court P. 491 has been considered in this judgment and it is also stated that it referred to the facts of the case. Learned AGP, therefore, submitted that what is required to be considered by the Court is whether the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at on the basis of the material or not. The learned AGP has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble the Apex Court reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court P.1987. The learned AGP therefore submitted that the petition may not be entertained. 4. The learned AGP has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble the Apex Court reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court P.1987. The learned AGP therefore submitted that the petition may not be entertained. 4. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition can be entertained or not. The proposition canvassed by learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the single solitary incident referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in case of Piyush Mehta reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court P. 491 cannot be accepted in light of the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1999(2) GLH (SC) P. 415 wherein it is clarified that it depends on the facts of the each case. It is well accepted by catena of judicial pronouncement that the order of detention can be sustained if it is shown that the Authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction based on objective material. In other words, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also required to be appreciated that the State is having prohibition and has rightly emphasized the judgment of this High Court reported in 2004 (2) GLR P. 1051 wherein in Para 7 it is observed that no preventive detention order can be recorded in a solitary incident or instance or offence cannot be accepted in toto. Therefore, it depends on the facts subject to the justifiable grounds and material available for passing the order of detention. Therefore, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it will have to be considered in light of the settled principle that subjective satisfaction has to be supported by material placed before the Authority. 5. In the facts of the present case, the material shows that the present petitioner is alleged to have been carrying on activity of transporting and selling the illicit liquor which is harmful to the public health which cannot be disputed. However, at the same time, it is a single solitary case and the quantity for which the offence is registered is also small. However, at the same time, it is a single solitary case and the quantity for which the offence is registered is also small. Therefore, considering the material considered for the purpose of passing the impugned order of detention may have baring on the ‘law and order’ particularly when the State is having the prohibition but it cannot be said to be causing any prejudice to the ‘public order’. 6. Therefore, having regard to the observations and the discussion on this aspect, it is clear that before the order of detention is passed, the Detaining Authority must come to a definite finding that there is threat to ‘public order’. It is also clear that the present case would not be covered in the said category fulfilling the requirements for prejudice to the ‘public order’ or causing threat to the ‘public order’. 7. In the circumstances, as the order of detention has been passed by the Respondent No. 2-Detaining Authority without having the adequate grounds for passing the order of detention in exercise of the powers under the Act, the said order cannot be sustained and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Therefore, in light of the discussion made hereinabove, present petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 11.06.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2-Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City is hereby quashed and set aside and the detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Rule made absolute accordingly. Direct service permitted. P P P P P