Judgment A.L. Dave, J.—The detenu - Salmaben w/o Abdulsalam Abdulgani Pathan came to be detained on 19.8.2010 pursuant to the order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City on basis of material placed before him. The detaining authority took into consideration one offence registered against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The authority also recorded in its reasons that the activity of the detenu was detrimental to public health and public order and it was not possible to deter him from the activities by following the regular procedure of law. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has, leaving aside the other contentions raised in the petition, emphasized on the fact that only one offence is registered against the detenu and he is labelled as a Bootlegger. There is no other material on record to show that the petitioner is involved in any other offence of similar nature to show that he is repetitively engaged in Bootlegging and therefore, the subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a Bootlegger is without any foundation which would vitiate the entire order. 3. It is also contended that there is no material with the detaining authority to record the satisfaction that the activity of the petitioner was detrimental to public health or public order. The material seized is not shown by any test to be detrimental to public health and therefore also, the order gets vitiated. 4. Learned AGP has opposed this petition. 5. When the detaining authority has relied only on one offence registered against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act to label him as a Bootlegger, it is not possible to uphold the satisfaction as the registration of single offence would not mean that it is the petitioner’s usual activity. He would, therefore, not fall within the definition of a Bootlegger. 6. Further the satisfaction about the activity of the petitioner being detrimental to public health and public order is not supported by any cogent material like Chemical Examiner’s report or other material to show that the material seized was dangerous to the public health. 7. He would, therefore, not fall within the definition of a Bootlegger. 6. Further the satisfaction about the activity of the petitioner being detrimental to public health and public order is not supported by any cogent material like Chemical Examiner’s report or other material to show that the material seized was dangerous to the public health. 7. The Apex Court in the case of District Collector, Ananthapur vs. V. Laxmanna, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 663 has taken a view and therefore, attracting the provisions of the Act, the detaining authority must be satisfied on material available to it (such as report of Chemical Examiner) that the arrack dealt with by the detenu is dangerous to public health. In this case, no such material is on record and in this count also, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority gets vitiated. 8. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The order dated 9.8.2010 detaining the detenu - Salmaben w/o Abdulsalam Abdulgani Pathan passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City impugned in the petition is hereby set aside. The detenu be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute. No costs. Direct service is permitted. P P P P P