Judgment M.D. Shah, J.—The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1985’) by the order dated 22-11-2010 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, and he has been declared as bootlegger. 2. Heard Learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. Also perused the record. 3. It appears that three offences being Limbayat Police Station III Crime Register Nos. 638 of 2010 and 650 of 2010, 666 of 2010 and 978 of 2010 dated 26-7-2010, 30-7-2010, 6-8-2010 and 12-11-2010 under the prohibition Act have been registered against the detenue alleging that country made liquor weighing 60, 15, 10 and 16 litres respectively were found from the possession of the detenu. On the basis of registration of the said cases, the detaining authority held that since the said activities of selling country made liquor of the present detenu were harmful to the health of the public, to restrain him from carrying further illegal activities, he has been detained. It is to be noted that there is a delay of about 10 days in passing the order of detention. Last offence was registered on 12-11-2010 and impugned order was passed on 22-11-2010. However, no explanation has been given by the detaining order in causing said delay by filing affidavit. Learned AGP has fairly admitted the same. He has relied upon a judgment delivered by this Court reported in 1997 (1) G.L.H. page 381 in the case of Elesh Nandubhai Patel vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and Ors. more particularly at Para 21 which reads as under: “There appears to be some substance in the contention of the petitioner that these two unregistered cases have been referred only with a view to cover up the gap or to give life to a stale case. This unexplained delay makes a ground of detention not proximate, vitiating the order of detention itself. If I am to buttress my findings, I would say the reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anand Prakash vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1990 SC 516 and Pradeep Nilkanth vs. S. Ramamurthy reported in 1993 (2) Suppl. SCC 61.” 4. In view of the above reported case, order of detention is illegal and same cannot be sustained. SCC 61.” 4. In view of the above reported case, order of detention is illegal and same cannot be sustained. It appears from the order that the activities of the detenu cannot be said to be disturbing the “public order”. It also appears from the order passed by the detaining authority that 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 arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated on account of non-application of mind and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Except the statements of some anonymous witnesses, there is no material on record which shows that the detenu is carrying on activities of selling country made liquor which is harmful to the health of the public. In the case of Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki vs. Police Commissioner, Surat [(2001) (1) GLH 393), having considered the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 740 ), this Court held that the case wherein the detention order passed on the basis of the statements of the witnesses fall under the maintenance of “law and order” and not “public order”. 6. Applying the ratio of the above decisions, it is clear that before passing an order of detention of a detenu, the detaining authority must come to a definite finding that there is threat to the “public order” and it is very clear that the present case would not fall within the category of threat to “public order”. In that view of the matter, when the order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority without having adequate grounds for passing the said order, it cannot be sustained and, therefore, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. The petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 22-11-2010 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City, passed against the detenu 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. P P P P P