JUDGMENT : UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J. 1. RULE. Shri Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no. 1-State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner to quash and set aside the preventive detention order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Police Commissioner, Vadodara in exercise of powers under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) whereby the petitioner has been detained as dangerous person. The said order came to be executed upon the petitioner-detenue on 16.12.2019. 3. Shri O.I. Pathan, learned advocate for the petitioner-detenue, submitted that the petitioner cannot be branded as dangerous person under Section 2(c) of the Act solely based on solitary offence as defined under the Act. He has further submitted that the registration of solitary offence and the record of that case alongwith the newspaper cutting relied on by the detaining authority will not disclose that the activities of the petitioner is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Except the registered offence relied on by the detaining authority for passing an order of preventive detention, there is no other material before it to subjectively satisfy itself to pass an order of preventive detention against the petitioner. 3.1 He has further submitted that there are three statements of anonymous witnesses recorded by the sponsoring Authority-in-charge Police Sub-Inspector, Laxmipura Police Station, Vadodara dated 15.12.2019 finding place in the grounds of detention whose names, addresses and the occupation are not disclosed to the petitioner and thereby deprived the petitioner of making effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. As against that, Shri Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that as a matter of law, it cannot be held that the preventive detention order cannot be passed only on solitary offence. If registration of offence clearly discloses breach of public order or activities of the petitioner, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a preventive detention order can be passed by the authority against the petitioner. Therefore, he has requested to dismiss the petition. 5. If registration of offence clearly discloses breach of public order or activities of the petitioner, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a preventive detention order can be passed by the authority against the petitioner. Therefore, he has requested to dismiss the petition. 5. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is stated by the authority that in the years 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2019 there are 10 cases registered under different provisions of Indian Penal Code in Vadodara City as also in areas like Sama, Fatehgunj, Raopura, Panigate, Karelibaug, Sayajiganj, Gotri, Savli and Vadodara Police Station. It is further stated in it that four times earlier in the years 2014, 2015, 2017 and 2019, an order of preventive detention was passed and executed upon him. It is further stated in it that despite that he has committed further offence as reflected from the order, being C.R. No. II 117 of 2019 registered with Laxmipura Police Station under Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of detention further discloses that the petitioner-detenue is a headstrong person and very fierce by nature. He used to contact innocent citizens over phone and demand ransom as he suspected that because of them he had to remain in detention and he used to demand ransom to compensate it. It is further disclosed that because of the activities of the petitioner, there is a fear in the mind of women in the city and a terror is created amongst them and thereby the petitioner has caused hindrance to the public order. Not only that, the order of detention further reflects that the petitioner is a headstrong person and not carrying on any honest pursuits in life. It is further stated that he keeps lethal weapon with him always and is acting as a road side ruffian in the area of Sayajiganj, Gorva, Gotri road in Vadodara. It is further stated that in those areas, petitioner used to tease college going girls and women in nearby vegetable market as also at bus stops. It is further reflected that there are three statements of anonymous witnesses, who are afraid of the petitioner and because of that fear though they have disclosed about the objectionable activities carried out by the petitioner, they have requested for keeping their identity secret. It is further reflected that there are three statements of anonymous witnesses, who are afraid of the petitioner and because of that fear though they have disclosed about the objectionable activities carried out by the petitioner, they have requested for keeping their identity secret. Based on that, their statements are recorded and names, addresses and occupation in their life have not been disclosed to the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties, it is clear that not only because of the solitary registered offence, the petitioner cannot be branded as dangerous person under Section 2(c) of the Act as the offence under Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code does not fall either in Chapters XVI or XVII of the Indian Penal Code or offence punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959. Except the registered offence, which is relied on for passing an order of detention there is no other offences either under Indian Penal Code or Arms Act, 1959 considered by the authority for passing an order of preventive detention. Requirement of branding a person as dangerous person, as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, is that he must habitually commit, or attempt to commit or abet the commission of any of the offences falling under the Chapters as referred to hereinabove of Indian Penal Code as also the Arms Act, which is missing in the present case. 6.1 The whole substratum of the order falls to the ground as the offence relied on cannot be considered to brand him as dangerous person under Section 2(c) of the Act. It is only from the FIR registered and the record of that case, unless and until it is disclosed that the activities of the petitioner, causes hindrance to the maintenance of public order, no order of preventive detention can be passed against the petitioner, based solely on solitary offence. It is only from the FIR registered and the record of that case, unless and until it is disclosed that the activities of the petitioner, causes hindrance to the maintenance of public order, no order of preventive detention can be passed against the petitioner, based solely on solitary offence. 6.2 Over and above that in view of the fact that the offence relied on does not fall in the category of the offences narrated in Section 2(c) of the Act, which reads as under: “(c) “dangerous person” means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959.” There are no other offences relied on by the detaining authority and there is no plurality of offence based on which it can be said that the petitioner habitually commits offence. Even if four times detention orders on earlier occasions are passed based on cases registered against him in those years, if those orders are either exhausted or set aside, for passing present order of detention, those cases, part of earlier detention orders, cannot be relied on by the detaining authority to say that the petitioner habitually commits an offence falling under Section 2(c) of the Act. 6.3 Over and above the registered offence, the detaining authority has relied on statements of three anonymous witnesses. However, names, addresses and occupation of the witnesses have been withheld from the petitioner. The order of detention refers that three anonymous witnesses have confirmed the anti social activities being carried out by the petitioner, they have given those statements on promise of anonymity. However, unless and until disclosure of names, addresses and occupation of anonymous witnesses is against the public interest, it can be withheld from the petitioner. Not only the detaining authority has not claimed privilege that the disclosure of the same is against the public interest, it has not even verified the statements of anonymous witnesses as to their existence, contents of statements as also ascertainment of their fear whether it is true or not. In absence of such privilege claimed the detaining authority could not have withheld their identity. In absence of such privilege claimed the detaining authority could not have withheld their identity. Therefore, non disclosure of their identity affects adversely the petitioners-detenues right to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and ultimately it truncates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 6.4 The statements of the anonymous witnesses are not personally verified as to the incidents narrated therein as also the fear of them in disclosure of their identity by the detaining authority. As such, for non-disclosure of it the detaining authority is expected to verify the same before acting upon such statements recorded by the sponsoring authority. Unless and until disclosure of the same is against the public interest, it is required to be disclosed to the petitioner to make effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India or else the detaining authority is expected to claim the privilege for withholding the same after genuinely verifying such statements as to its contents as also the fear shown by the witnesses to be genuine or not. However, such privilege being not claimed, the detaining authority was supposed to disclose it in the grounds of detention. In the present case, neither the detaining authority has claimed such privilege under Section 9(2) of the Act nor disclosed the names and identity of the anonymous witnesses. Thus, it has caused serious prejudice in making effective representation by the petitioner-detenue as provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned order of detention passed by the detaining authority is vitiated and as such the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained. 7. In view thereof, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of detention bearing No. PCB/PASA/DTN/175/2019 dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City is hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner- detenue is hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly.