JUDGMENT : UMESH A. TRIVEDI 1. Rule. Mr.Dharmesh Devnani, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner, by way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order of preventive detention passed by Respondent No.2 herein dated 16.02.2019 in exercise of powers under Sub- Section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as ‘PASA’), whereby, the petitioner has been detained as bootlegger, bearing No.PCB/DTN/PASA/163 of 2019 which came to be executed on 20.02.2019 being illegal, violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and passed without any application of mind. 3. While passing the order of detention, it is reflected from the grounds of detention that the petitioner is involved in procuring, selling and delivering Indian made foreign liquor, as also beer around his residential premises with his co-accused without any pass or permit and dealing in it and transporting it too. For the purpose, it is said that there are offences registered and going through the registered offences, the afore-stated facts have been elicited by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention from the solitary FIR registered against the petitioner. However, one may have look at the order of detention, it is clear that there is only one offence registered against the petitioner and not the offences, as claimed by the detaining authority in the detention order. 4. Ms. Shbhadra G. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that even if registration of a solitary offence may be sufficient to brand him as Bootlegger as defined under Section 2(b) of the PASA, the petitioner cannot be preventively detained unless it is shown that the activities of the petitioner is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. She has further argued that in view of Sub-Section (4) of Section 3 of PASA, a deeming fiction is introduced that the person carrying on activities whether as Bootlegger or Gambling House Keeper or Dangerous Person or Drug Offender or Immoral Traffic Offender or Property Grabber which affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. She has further argued that in view of Sub-Section (4) of Section 3 of PASA, a deeming fiction is introduced that the person carrying on activities whether as Bootlegger or Gambling House Keeper or Dangerous Person or Drug Offender or Immoral Traffic Offender or Property Grabber which affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. She has further submitted that even looking at the compilation along with the grounds of detention which has been furnished to the detenue, it cannot be said that the registration of a solitary offence can affect adversely or is likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Therefore, she has requested to quash and set aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner. 5. As against that, Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader argued that since the Indian made foreign liquor, as also beer affects adversely the health of public at large and when the petitioner is dealing with the same, he being branded as Bootlegger, his activities must be held to be affecting or likely to affect the maintenance of public order. Therefore, he supports the order of detention passed by the detaining authority. 6. As such, as a proposition of law it can never be held that no order of detention can be passed based on solitary offence. However, very registration of that solitary offence, if it is made out that the activities complained of in FIR is sufficient to record the subjective satisfaction that it has affected adversely or it is likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order, the order of detention can be passed. Here, in the present case, not only from the FIR but from the other papers of compilation furnished to the detenue, no man of a normal prudence can say, based on such solitary offence, that the activities of the petitioner has affected adversely or is likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. 7. Over and above that, the subjective satisfaction recorded by detaining authority in passing the order of detention against the petitioner has also been vitiated on the ground of non application of mind. When the detaining authority has referred that the petitioner is carrying on his activities of procuring, selling and supplying the Indian made foreign liquor and beer from nearby areas of his residence. When the detaining authority has referred that the petitioner is carrying on his activities of procuring, selling and supplying the Indian made foreign liquor and beer from nearby areas of his residence. It is clear that petitioner is not the resident of area from where liquor is found. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has tried to support that statement of fact recorded in the order of detention from the papers of compilation furnished to the detenue based on which, the subjective satisfaction is recorded by the detaining authority but has failed to show that he is doing such activity around his residence itself. The place of offence wherefrom the articles are found in possession is different from his place of residence as reflected from the FIR itself. 9. As such, based on registration of solitary FIR of a case under Prohibition Act, no order of preventive detention could have been passed unless reading the FIR itself, if it is successfully shown that the activities narrated therein affects or likely to affect the maintenance of public order or it is in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 10. There are several instances wherein at pre-execution stage even this Court has quashed proposed order of detention based on apprehension of passing preventive detention order in cases of a solitary offence. One such case is rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.7826 of 2014. This Court is at a loss to understand how solitary case registered against the detenue under the Prohibition Act can affect the maintenance of public order. As such, it has not been reflected from the grounds of detention also that the solitary offence registered against the detenue has affected adversely or is likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. At best, dealing in Indian made foreign liquor or even a beer can be dealt with under ordinary law and the person can be punished, if offence is proved against him. But, a liberty of a citizen cannot be tinkered with in a situation where a person can be dealt with under an ordinary law. There is huge difference between the preventive detention, as also punitive detention. But, a liberty of a citizen cannot be tinkered with in a situation where a person can be dealt with under an ordinary law. There is huge difference between the preventive detention, as also punitive detention. Therefore, detaining authority has to be conscious enough while passing an order of preventive detention, more particularly, based on solitary offence registered against the detenue without any material on record showing that it has affected adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Merely because, a person is branded as Bootlegger, as defined under Section 2(b) of the PASA Act, on registration of an offence, he cannot be preventively detained, that too, based on solitary offence unless it is shown from the registration of offence that the detenue is acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Not only that, the said activity of the detenue must affect adversely or likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Mere selling or possessing any Indian made foreign liquor or even a beer tin, cannot cause or likely to cause any harm, danger, alarm or feeling of insecurity amongst the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property or public health. Therefore, based on solitary offence, without any other material reflecting from the FIR or any supporting documents or material, no order of preventive detention could be passed taking away the liberty of a citizen. Here, in the present case, the order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind as referred to herein above in addition thereto, the order or preventive detention is required to be quashed based on solitary FIR which does not reflect that the activity of the detenue is such that it affects or likely to affect the maintenance of public order. 11. In that view of the matter, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is illegal and therefore, the order of detention passed against the petitioner dated 16.02.2019, being No.PCB/DTN/PASA/163/2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.