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 20.06.2010 passed by Respondent No. 2-Commissioner of Police, Rajkot 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 importing, storing, transporting and selling in retail as well as in wholesale the illicit liquor as stated in detail in the grounds of detention dated 20.06.2010. 2. Learned Counsel Mr. 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 Prohi. C.R.No. 281 of 2010 has been registered with B Division Police Station, Rajkot City against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 66(B), 65(A)(E), 81, 116(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 for the petitioner 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 grounds of detention and submitted that as stated in the ground, 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 for the petitioner further 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. He further 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. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner, 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 Mr. Shivang J. Shukla has 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 activities of importing, storing, transporting and selling in retail as well as in wholesale the illicit liquor in the State which is prohibited. He 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. He also referred to the activities indulged 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 grounds and emphasized that subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Authority as stated in the grounds 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 ground of detention 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. 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. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present petition can be entertained 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. 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 cannot be accepted in light of the 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. However, at the same time considering the judgment of this High Court reported in 2004 (2) G.L.R. 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 importing, storing, transporting and selling in retail as well as in wholesale 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. Therefore, considering the material considered for the purpose of passing the impugned order of detention may have bearing 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, considering the material considered for the purpose of passing the impugned order of detention may have bearing 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 passing the order of detention, 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 above 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 20.06.2010 passed by the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City is hereby quashed and set aside and the detenu 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.