JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Mr.Shivam Dixit, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of preventive detention dated 16.12.2019 passed by Respondent No.1 - Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city, bearing No.PCB/DTN/PASA/1431/2019 in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') whereby, the petitioner has been detained as 'Dangerous Person'. The said order of detention came to be executed upon the petitioner on the very same day. 3. Mr.Hardik Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of the impugned order of detention and submitted that for branding the petitioner as 'Dangerous Person', under Section 2 (c) of the Act, the detaining authority has relied on two cases registered against him being (1) C.R.No.I-72 of 2017 registered with Gaiakwad Haveli Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 332, 143, 147, 427 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), as also under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act and (2) C.R.No.I-45 of 2019 registered with Gaiakwad Haveli Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143,147,149, 336 and 188 of the IPC, as also under Section 135 (1) of the Gujarat Police Act. Over and above that, according to the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner, there are stereotyped statements of two anonymous witnesses recorded by the sponsoring authority on 14.12.2019 and claimed to be verified by the detaining authority on 16.12.2019. He has further submitted that considering the FIRs of the registered offences and the record of the cases, it is clear that there is no material to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the activities carried on by the petitioner are in any manner prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. He has further submitted that considering the FIRs of the registered offences and the record of the cases, it is clear that there is no material to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the activities carried on by the petitioner are in any manner prejudicial or likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 4. It is submitted that the first case relied on by the authority came to be registered on 10.8.2017 for which the petitioner came to be arrested on 27.8.2017 and ordered to be released on bail by an order dated 28.8.2017, therefore, it is submitted that the said case is too stale to be considered for arriving at a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as on 16.12.2019, the date of passing of order of preventive detention. Even if independently, as argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is considered, it cannot be said that there is any breach of public order. 5. It is urged that if the first case is taken out of consideration there remains a solitary offence against the petitioner which came to be registered on 21.3.2019, in which the petitioner came to be arrested on 27.5.2019 and ordered to be released on bail on the same day. Therefore, it is urged that even if based on that solitary offence, if petitioner is sought to be preventively detained, the live link between the last offence committed by him on 21.3.2019 and order of release on bail dated 27.5.2019 and the purpose of passing an order of preventive detention dated 16.12.2019 is snapped. It is further submitted by the learned advocate that if at all the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order considering the registration of an offence against him, no man of a normal prudence would have waited for passing an order of preventive detention till 16.12.2019.Therefore, on the ground of delay also, the order of preventive detention is vitiated and requires to be set aside, as submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner. 6. 6. So far as statements of the anonymous witnesses are concerned, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there is no material finding place on record that how and for what purpose those statements were recorded after about 9 months of the commission of last offence by the petitioner and nearly 7 months after he is ordered to be released on bail. It is further submitted that both these statements of anonymous witnesses except for the individual offence of violence over them, rest of the part is verbatim same, which may probably in letters can be said to be a breach of public order. It is further submitted that those statements are stereotyped statements recorded by the sponsoring authority in every case of preventive detention and verified in the very same manner by the detaining authority either on that very day or on the next day or two days thereafter and immediately the order of preventive detention comes to be passed. According to the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner, no reliance should be placed on those statements for passing an order of preventive detention. 7. As against that, Mr.Shivam Dixit, learned AGP has supported the impugned order of detention. It is submitted that detaining authority has closely examined the proposal made by the sponsoring authority and upon being subjectively satisfied that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order has passed the impugned order, which is just, legal and proper and does not warrant any intervention by this Court. 8. The orders under preventive detention laws are passed to prevent a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and unless and until a person can be dealt with under the penal statutes, no order of preventive detention be resorted for. So far as first case relied on by the detaining authority for passing an order of preventive detention is concerned, it is clear from the FIR of the registered offence and the record of that case that it occurred because of an accident caused between S.T. Bus and Motorcycle because of which, the Bus driver registered an FIR showing driver of the Motorcycle, as also pillion rider responsible for it. However, on accident taking place the person standing nearby witnessed it and rushed to the spot believing driver of S.T. Bus to be responsible for the same and pelted stones over it and the windshields of the bus as also glass of both the headlights were severally damaged. Not only the said case is too stale to be considered for passing an order of detention. From the FIR, as also record of that case, it is not reflected that in any manner, there is any breach of public order. It may be a simple case of breach of law and order to be dealt with under the penal statue. At any rate, for passing an order of preventive detention against a person to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the case registered in remote past cannot be considered or relied on by the authority. 9. If the first case is taken out of consideration by the detaining authority for arriving at a subjective satisfaction, there remains solitary offence which came to be registered on 21.3.2019. If the FIR, as also the record of the said case is considered, it is registered against one Kantibhai Ukaji Saragada and his brother Kailash along with present petitioner and four other unknown persons where the said incident occurred while the first informant and the accused named therein picked up quarrel while they were dancing in some religious procession. Neither from the FIR nor from the record of the case, the activities of the petitioner can be said to be causing any hindrance to the maintenance of public order. Not only that, to brand a person as ‘Dangerous Person’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act, it must be first established that he habitually commits the offence under Chapter XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code or an offence under Chapter V of the Arms Act. The word “Habitually Commits” signifies consistent, persistent, as also plurality of offence and not the solitary offence in present. Only offences which are proximate in time can be considered for passig an order of preventive detention and not the solitary offence. 10. There remains two statements of anonymous witnesses whose identity is withheld from the petitioner after detaining authority personally verified the same about their fear being afraid of the petitioner, to be true. 11. Only offences which are proximate in time can be considered for passig an order of preventive detention and not the solitary offence. 10. There remains two statements of anonymous witnesses whose identity is withheld from the petitioner after detaining authority personally verified the same about their fear being afraid of the petitioner, to be true. 11. However, if the contents of those anonymous statements are considered except individual incidents of violence shown in it, rest of the facts are verbatim same alleging petitioner rushing towards the people gathered there and because of which, they ran helter – skelter and there was disruption of vehicular traffic causing an atmosphere of panic amongst them. The said part in all most all the statements of anonymous witnesses in every detention case finds place to assert that the activities of person is such that it is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Therefore, relying on such stereotyped statements of anonymous witnesses, no order of preventive detention can be passed. Thus, the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority is vitiated and it requires to be set aside. 12. Coming to the next submission about delay in passing an order of preventive detention, from the facts of the present case, it is clear that last offence committed by the petitioner is on 21.3.2019 whereas, an order of preventive detention came to be passed only on 16.12.2019. The impugned order of preventive detention is, therefore, liable to be set aside on the ground of delay in passing the order of preventive detention. There must be live and proximate link between the grounds of detention alleged by the detaining authority and the purpose of detention. The live and proximate link between the order of detention and the purpose for which it has been passed is snapped in the present case on account of undue, unreasonable and unexplained delay in passing the order of detention. If only the solitary offence at serial number 2 is to be relied on for passing an order of preventive detention, it could have been passed if not on the day of commission of offence but within a reasonable time if his activities are to be assessed as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If only the solitary offence at serial number 2 is to be relied on for passing an order of preventive detention, it could have been passed if not on the day of commission of offence but within a reasonable time if his activities are to be assessed as prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Here in the present case, the detaining authority took 9 months to pass an order of preventive detention based on the prejudicial activities of the petitioner carried out in the month of March, 2019. Therefore, on this ground also, subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated. 13. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention bearing No.PCB/DTN/PASA/1431/2019 passed by respondent No.1 herein – Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City dated 16.12.2019, 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.