JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent – State. 2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.9.2015 issued by the District Supply Officer, Vadodara calling them to remain present before him for inquiring about 1260 liters kerosene seized in 6 barrels from tempo No.GJ19V4725 on 1.7.2015 near Golden Cross Road within jurisdiction of Harni police station, Vadodara so also directing the respondent to produce on record the relevant papers / records / grounds and other material in support of the order of detention if any proposed or likely to be passed against the petitioner and after perusing such documents to quash the same when petitioner is apprehending that there may be an order of his detention under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (‘PASA’, for short) or Prevention of Black Marketing & Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (`PBM Act,' for short) with reference to police diary entry No.4/2015 with ancillary relief in form of prohibitory order to restrain the respondent/s from detaining the petitioner during pendency of such petition and thereby to stay the implementation, execution and operation of proposed order of detention which is likely to be passed at the relevant time. 4. It seems that on 1.7.2015 respondents have intercepted the petitioner and on examining the vehicle which he was driven near golden cross road within the jurisdiction of Harni police station of Vadodara, they found six barrels containing 210 liters kerosene each, thereby, 1260 liters kerosene and its their case that petitioner is involved in black marketing of such material because petitioner was not having proper documentation regarding transactions and possession of such kerosene. 5. As against that it is contended by the petitioner that though police has seized the vehicle, on an application before the Court of JMFC, Vadodara, the Court has ordered to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner because petitioner has not committed any offences and so far as petitioner is concerned, the police itself has released him on bail immediately after arresting him based upon above referred police diary but without any substance and reason. It is further submitted that thereafter there is no chargesheet filed and ultimately petitioner has received the show cause notice after gap of almost three months to remain present before the respondents only with a view to harass the petitioner and therefore petitioner apprehends that he may be booked either under PASA or under the Prevention of Black Marketing Act, 1980 ('For short `PBM Act') and, therefore, petitioner has preferred such petition. 6. It is submitted that based upon such solitary case diary against the petitioner, he cannot be detained since disclosure of offence in police diary is exfacie illegal, unjust, improper and in violation of fundamental rights of the citizen. It is further alleged that just to complete their quota of order of detention, they are passing such an order without subjective satisfaction and, therefore, there is apprehension. It is further submitted that there is no nexus or link with disturbance of public order from alleged activities by the petitioner and it is not prejudicial to the public order in any manner. It is also submitted that there is no evidence or material to support the proposed order of detention since the allegation is only regarding having presence of kerosene in truck wherein petitioner was simply driver, and he was transmitting it from one place to another place and, therefore, he is neither owner nor a person who has kept stock of such material for any illegal activity. It is also submitted that respondents have never bothered to verify all such facts and that if at all there is absence of such documents in a truck with the material at relevant point of time then at the most petitioner may be asked to call upon such details but lodging FIR against him or detaining him is certainly unwarranted since it would result into infringement of fundamental rights and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is further submitted that after the several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the High Court, now, the law is well settled merely on registration of offence, a person cannot be booked either under PASA or PBM Act and that if such order is passed for law and order situation and not for maintenance of public order then also order of detention is certainly required to be quashed and set aside. 8. 8. In support of such submissions, petitioner is relying upon following decisions: (1) Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018(16) SCC 14, (2) Piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police reported in AIR 1989 SC 491 and (3) judgment dated 28.3.2011 by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.2732/2010 in Special Civil Application No.9492/2012 wherein it is held that detention order can be quashed at pre-execution stage. 9. It is further submitted that in absence of direct or indirect evidence to link the petitioner with the allegation levelled against him and more particularly, when complaint does not disclose any specific averment in absence of any such allegation, there is no reason to detain the petitioner. 10. Petitioner has also pleaded in detail about the right of the petitioner in challenging such order and jurisdiction of the Court to pass appropriate orders. However, there is no dispute to such issues and, therefore, there is no need for discussing all such details. 11. Petitioner has also produced all relevant documents which simply confirms that he was driving the vehicle with alleged material, however, any such evidence does not confirm that any offence is committed by him under the Essential Commodities Act. 12. Whereas, while issuing notice on 1.10.2015, the Coordinate Bench has initially not granted interim relief but when other side is served, the Court has granted interim relief by order dated 8.10.2015 so as to restrain the respondents from disturbing the petitioner in any manner whatsoever or to call upon him, against the proposed order of detention, if any. 13. Thereafter, only on 15.11.2016 it is disclosed at bar that there is proposal to detain the petitioner under PASA / PBM Act. However, till date, neither copy of order of proposal nor reply nor any other information is placed on record so as to ascertain that whether there is substantive material against the petitioner so as to detain him. 14. It is also quite clear that detention under PASA is possible if somebody is involved in offence either under the Prohibition Act or under IPC or under Drug and Cosmetic Act etc. 14. It is also quite clear that detention under PASA is possible if somebody is involved in offence either under the Prohibition Act or under IPC or under Drug and Cosmetic Act etc. either as a `Dangerous Person' or `Bootlegger' or `Drug Offender' respectively so also either as a common `Gaming House Keeper' for the offences punishable under Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1987 or as a `Cruel Person' for the offences punishable under the Act or a `Immoral Traffic Offender' for the offences under the Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 or as a `Property Grabber' or as an `Unauthorized Structure' for the illegal activities with reference to properties. Whereas, in case of offence under Essential Commodities Act, detention would be under the PBM Act Act and not under the PASA. However, in case when respondents have not come forward with their reply or reasons or proposed detention and when otherwise also there is no evidence on record to confirm that petitioner has committed any offence in any manner whatsoever so as to detain him either under PBM Act or PASA, now after the gap of three years, there is no reason to detain the petitioner for an alleged activities which may at the most considered as irregularity, inasmuch as, authority should have called upon and permitted the petitioner to disclose and produce the details about the transaction of material that from whom and when and to whom and where it is being transmitted. 15. Ultimately, petitioner is only a driver and in absence of other evidence, there is no reason to detain the petitioner. 16. Therefore, petition is allowed whereby respondents are restrained from detaining the petitioner. However, it is made clear that respondent may inquiry further details from the petitioner in accordance with law but at this stage, petitioner is protected from detention under PASA or PBM Act, respondents are entitled to apply for modification of such order in case of evidence available to them for doing so. 17. Petition is allowed in above terms. Interim Relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.