JUDGMENT : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. Civil Application No.1 of 2018 is filed by the applicant - petitioner for releasing him on bail, till the final disposal of the petition. 2. When the Civil Application is listed for hearing, learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is having good case on merits and the respondent authority has grossly violated the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "PASA" for short) and also not properly considered the order dated 07.09.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.20722 of 2016. It is contended that this Court has specifically directed the respondent authority that while passing the order of detention, the authority shall not consider the First Information Reports filed against the petitioner, which are stated in the said order. In spite of that, the respondent authority has passed the order relying upon such FIRs and thereby violated the direction issued by this Court. He, therefore, requested that the the applicant - petitioner be released during the pendency of the petition. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. Vs. Sureshbhai Keshavbhai Shah and Anr. reported in, (2016) 4 GLR 3175 and submitted that this Court is having power to release the detenue on bail during the pendency of the petition. 4. This Court has considered the aforesaid decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court wherein Division Bench of this Court has laid down the guidelines in Paragraph-11, which reads as under: "11. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions, the answer of the question posed in this appeal is as under: I. The learned Single Judge is having jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to release the detenu for temporary period during the pendency of the petition. However, such powers are required to be exercised in great circumspection and not in routine manner. II. While exercising such powers, the Court shall consider the object and purpose of the Act, under which, the order of detention has been passed. III. The detenu cannot be released on bail/for temporary period as a matter of common practice on considerations generally applicable to cases of punitive detention. The jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to grant relief to the detenu is very limited. IV. III. The detenu cannot be released on bail/for temporary period as a matter of common practice on considerations generally applicable to cases of punitive detention. The jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge to grant relief to the detenu is very limited. IV. If the learned Single Judge is of the opinion that prima-facie, the allegations made in the writ petition disclose a serious defect/lacuna in the order of detention, which would justify the release of the detenu, the wiser and the reasonable course to adopt by the Court would be to expedite the hearing of the writ petition and deal with the merits without any delay. V. While releasing the detenu on bail/for temporary period, the Court shall assign brief reasons for exercising such jurisdiction." 5. I have considered the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court. In Paragraph-11(IV), the Division Bench has observed that if the learned Single Judge is of the opinion that prima facie, the allegations made in the writ petition disclose a serious defect/lacuna in the order of detention, which would justify release of the detenue, the wiser and the reasonable course to adopt by the Court would be to expedite the hearing of the writ petition and deal with the merits without any delay. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Division Bench of this Court, I have directed the Registry to list the main petition being Special Civil Application No.20259 of 2018 for hearing and, therefore, learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has argued the main matter and the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rohan Yagnik appearing for the respondents authorities has also made submissions on the merits of the main petition. 7. In the main petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order of detention dated 12.12.2018 passed by respondent No.2, copy of which is produced at Page-172 of the compilation, be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.20722 of 2016 before this Court at pre-detention stage. This Court disposed of the said petition by an order dated 07.09.2017 wherein this Court has specifically observed that the detaining authority shall not detain the petitioner under the PASA on account of certain offences which are registered against the petitioner. This Court disposed of the said petition by an order dated 07.09.2017 wherein this Court has specifically observed that the detaining authority shall not detain the petitioner under the PASA on account of certain offences which are registered against the petitioner. A liberty was granted by this Court to the authority to initiate the proceedings under PASA against the petitioner in respect of other offences, if any, registered and incriminating materials found against the petitioner after the disposal of the said petition. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya has also referred the order dated 01.11.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.15319 of 2018. It is submitted that the petitioner once again filed the petition at pre-detention stage and this Court has disposed of the said petition by observing that there was no order of detention against the petitioner on the date of passing of the said order. It is contended that though the said petition was disposed of 01.11.2018, within a period of one month, the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.2 and thereby the petitioner is detained under PASA. It is submitted that the authority has passed an order while exercising powers under Section 3(2) of the PASA. Learned advocate Mr.Mangukiya has referred the impugned order and contended that though this Court has specifically observed that while passing the order against the petitioner, the authority shall not consider FIR being C.R. No.I-8 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, however, respondent No.2 has considered the said FIR. It is further contended that though this Court has specifically observed that while passing the order of detention, respondent No.2 shall not consider the First Information Reports being C.R.No.I-80 of 2013 with Rajula Police Station, C.R.No.II-64 of 2014 registered with Rajula Police Station, C.R.No.II-69 of 2014 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R.No.II-13 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R.No.II-23 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R. No.I-36 of 2016 registered with Rajula Police Station, the detaining authority has referred all the aforesaid First Information Reports which were registered against the petitioner, in which, the petitioner has been acquitted. 8.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has placed reliance upon order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.173 of 2016 and more particularly, has placed reliance upon the observations made in Paragraph-6 of the said order. 8.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya has placed reliance upon order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.173 of 2016 and more particularly, has placed reliance upon the observations made in Paragraph-6 of the said order. After relying upon the same, it is contended that the subjective satisfaction of respondent No.2 is vitiated as respondent No.2 has considered the irrelevant material and this Court has specifically observed in the order dated 07.09.2017 passed in Special Civil Application No.20722 of 2016 that First Information Reports, which are mentioned in the order, shall not be considered by the respondent authority while passing the order of detention. In spite of that, such First Information Reports are considered by respondent No.2. He, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and thereby the respondents are directed to release the petitioner forthwith. 9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rohan Yagnik has vehemently opposed this petition and submitted that no error is committed by respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order against the petitioner. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader has fairly submitted on the basis of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 Collector and District Magistrate, Amreli, in Civil Application that due to oversight FIR being C.R.No.I-8 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, has been considered by the said authority while passing the order of detention. It is required to be noted that the affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent No.2 in the Civil Application. However, no affidavit- in-reply is filed by respondent No.2 in the main petition though sufficient time was given and, therefore, without affidavit of detaining authority in the main petition, this Court has considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 9.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader would thereafter contend that though respondent No.2 has considered the FIR being C.R. No.I-8 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, respondent authority has also considered three other First Information Reports which are filed against the petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred the impugned order and contended that the other three FIRs were not referred in the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20722 of 2016 and, therefore, the respondent authority has rightly considered the aforesaid offences which are registered against the petitioner at the time of passing the impugned order. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred the impugned order and contended that the other three FIRs were not referred in the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20722 of 2016 and, therefore, the respondent authority has rightly considered the aforesaid offences which are registered against the petitioner at the time of passing the impugned order. It is further contended that respondent No.2 has though referred six First Information Reports which were filed against the petitioner, at the time of passing the impugned order, the said material was considered to show the criminal history of the petitioner. However, while passing the impugned order, such material was not taken into consideration by respondent No.2 and, therefore, the subjective satisfaction of respondent No.2 is not vitiated, as alleged by the learned advocate for the petitioner. He, therefore, contended that there is no merits in the present petition and, therefore, the same be dismissed. 10. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocate appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.20722 of 2016 at pre-detention stage. This Court disposed of the said petition by order dated 07.09.2017, as there was no proposal received by the respondent nor any detention order was passed against the petitioner. This Court, while disposing the said petition, observed as under: "Learned advocate for the petitioner is absent. Learned AGP produces on record communication dated 06.09.2017 before this court, whereby it is communicated to the office of the Government Pleader that neither any proposal is received nor any detention order has been passed. The said communication is ordered to be taken on record. Under the circumstances, present petition has become in-fructuous and stands disposed of as having become in-fructuous. Rule is discharged. The said communication is ordered to be taken on record. Under the circumstances, present petition has become in-fructuous and stands disposed of as having become in-fructuous. Rule is discharged. It is clarified that the detaining authority shall not detain the petitioner under the PASA Act on account of offences registered vide C.R. No. I - 80 of 2013 with Rajula Police Station, C.R. No. II - 64 of 2014 registered with Rajula Police Station, C.R. No. II - 69 of 2014 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R. No. II - 13 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R. No. II - 23 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R. No. I - 8 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R. No. I - 36 of 2016 registered with Rajula Police Station. However, the competent authority is at liberty to initiate proceeding under the PASA Act against the petitioner in respect of other offences, if any, registered and incriminating materials found and made available after the disposal of present petition." 11. If the aforesaid order is carefully seen, it is clear that this Court has specifically directed the detaining authority that it shall not detain the petitioner under PASA on account of the First Information Reports, which are stated in the said order. However, liberty was reserved to the competent authority to initiate proceedings under PASA against the petitioner in respect of other offences, if any, registered and incriminating material found and made available, after the disposal of the said petition. Thus, I am of the view that liberty was reserved to the respondent authority to pass an order under the PASA, but the authority has to consider the FIRs registered after the disposal of the said petition and if the incriminating material is found or made available to the authority, after the disposal of the petition i.e. after 07.09.2017. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations, if the impugned order is examined, it is revealed that the respondent authority has considered the FIR being C.R. No.I-8 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station. The respondent authority has admitted on affidavit filed in Civil Application that through oversight the said FIR is considered while passing the impugned order. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the respondent authority is vitiated. The respondent authority has admitted on affidavit filed in Civil Application that through oversight the said FIR is considered while passing the impugned order. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the subjective satisfaction of the respondent authority is vitiated. While passing the impugned order, the authority has considered irrelevant material. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that while passing the impugned order, the respondent authority has considered the FIR being C.R. No.I-19 of 2015 registered with Pipavav Marine Police Station on 13.05.2015 as well as the FIR being C.R. No.I-54 of 2017 registered with Rajula Police Station on 04.06.2017. Thus, the aforesaid two FIRs were registered against the petitioner prior to the order dated 07.09.2017 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.20722 of 2016. This Court has specifically observed that while passing the order against the petitioner, the other offences registered after the disposal of the petition, can be considered by the respondent authority. However, both the aforesaid First Information Reports were registered prior to the passing the order by this Court and, therefore, I am of the view that subjective satisfaction of the respondent authority is vitiated as irrelevant material is considered. 13. It is also required to be noted that though this Court has specifically stated that offences registered vide C.R.No.I-80 of 2013 with Rajula Police Station, C.R.No.II-64 of 2014 registered with Rajula Police Station, C.R.No.II-69 of 2014 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R.No.II-13 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R.No.II-23 of 2015 registered with Marine Pipavav Police Station, C.R.No.I-36 of 2016 registered with Rajula Police Station, shall not be considered by the respondent authority. The said FIRs are specifically stated by way of table in the impugned order. Though it is observed by the authority that the aforesaid FIRs are not taken into consideration for passing the order of detention, however, for considering the criminal history of the petitioner, the same are considered. I am of the view that when this Court has specifically directed the respondent authority not to consider the said FIRs, the respondent authority ought not have considered the aforesaid FIRs even for considering the criminal history of the petitioner. In all the aforesaid FIRs, the petitioner is acquitted and in one case, the FIR is quashed by this Court. I am of the view that when this Court has specifically directed the respondent authority not to consider the said FIRs, the respondent authority ought not have considered the aforesaid FIRs even for considering the criminal history of the petitioner. In all the aforesaid FIRs, the petitioner is acquitted and in one case, the FIR is quashed by this Court. Thus, such FIRs cannot be considered even for considering criminal history of the petitioner. 14. The Division Bench of this Court has observed in Paragraph-6 of the order dated 02.05.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.173 of 2016 as under: "6. Even in this case, the authority apart from referring to other crimes also placed reliance on Crime Register No.3038 of 2015 registered on the file of DCB Police Station and came to subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. From perusal of the material on record it clearly shows that the detaining authority has passed order of detention by alleging that tamancha and live cartridges were seized were from the petitioner in Crime Register No.3038 of 2015 registered on the file of DCB Police Station, but in fact, there is no such material to show that such weapons and cartridges were seized from the petitioner. In view of the above, the specific ground raised by the petitioner that the detaining authority has taken irrelevant material into consideration and passed the order of detention, without application of mind, deserves consideration. When three crimes are referred to by the detaining authority in coming to subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order on the premise that tamancha and live cartridges were seized from the petitioner, which in fact is not so, is sufficient ground to invalidate the order of detention. As much as liberty of a person is deprived of and the petitioner is detained by way of preventive detention, such a ground itself is sufficient to invalidate the order of detention. As much as liberty of a person is deprived of and the petitioner is detained by way of preventive detention, such a ground itself is sufficient to invalidate the order of detention. In any event, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Applications No.13547 of 2015 and 13442 of 2015, which are filed by accused nos.1 and 2 in Crime Register No.3038 of 2015 registered on the file of DCB Police Station, this Court has held that simpliciter narration of registration of various crimes by itself is not sufficient and cannot have nexus with the maintenance of public order. The authorities cannot have recourse under the Act to pass order of detention. As we are of the view that such ground itself is sufficient to set aside the order of detention, it is not necessary to consider other grounds raised by the appellant as we are of the considered view that having regard to the reasons stated above it is a clear case of non application of mind by the detaining authority to the relevant material while passing the order of detention and the same is in violation of rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India." 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision and in overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 passed by respondent authority is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. The petitioner - detenue is set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct Service is permitted. 16. It is clarified that this order has been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and this may not be considered as precedent. 17. Accordingly, Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of, accordingly.