JUDGMENT : (A.Y. Kogje, J.) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with prayers as under: “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ or any other appropriate, writ order or direction and be pleased to quashed and set aside the order of detention order Vide GMJA/PASA No.23/2023 dated 02/08/2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 under the provision of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 as being illegal, invalid, null and void, arbitrary, suffers from total non application of mind and violate of Article 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution of India. (B) The applicant is in Judicial Custody therefore affidavit of the applicant may kindly be dispensed with.” 2. The present petition is directed against order of detention dated 02-08-2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by detaining the petitioner – detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act. 3. Essentially challenge is made to the order of detention dated 02.08.2023 by the District Magistrate, Jamnagar detaining the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’ by relying upon six FIR registered against the petitioner as IPC offences. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner at the outset has challenged the detention of the petitioner on the ground that along with the grounds of detention, the documents are supplied to substantiate the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. However, many of the pages in the documents are hardly legible and thereby precluded the petitioner from his valuable right to understand grounds of detention and make necessary representation. 3.2 In this connection, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of the State of Manipur and ors. v/s. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand and another passed in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.2420 of 2022 dated 19-10-2022, wherein the Apex Court has held that non-supply of legible documents supporting the detention is fatal to the detention order. 3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Detaining Authority has placed reliance upon the stale offences particularly very first offence on which reliance placed is of the year 2020. 3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Detaining Authority has placed reliance upon the stale offences particularly very first offence on which reliance placed is of the year 2020. Thereafter, there are no offences against the petitioner till in the year 2022, when three offences were registered and thereafter, two offences which were registered in the year 2023. Therefore, as there is no live-link between the offences registered in the year 2020 and 2022, the petitioner cannot be considered as habitual offender. 3.4 Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mallada K. Sri Ram v/s. the State of Telangana and ors. reported in 2023 Cri.LJ 697. 4. As against this, learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the petition on the ground that grounds of live-link cannot be raised by the petitioner particularly considering the fact that the petitioner is consistently indulging in offences registered in the year 2022, when three offences were registered and two offences in the year 2023 in quick succession. 4.1 Learned AGP has submitted that detail narration of the manner, in which the offences have been taken place and the involvement of the petitioner in such offences would definitely attract the requirement of definition of "Dangerous Person" and therefore, the Detaining Authority was justified in passing the detention order. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the detention order of the petitioner is based on six offences as is evident from the grounds of detention dated 02-08-2023, details of which is given in tabular form, which is as under : Sr. No. Name of Police Station F.I.R. No. Section Date of arrest of accused and date of bail granted to the accused 1. Jamnagar City ‘B’ Division Police Station C.R. No.11202009201623/2020 Section-379, 114 of I.P.C. Arrested on 18-11- 2020 / Bail granted on 20-11-2020 2. Jamnagar City ‘B’ Division Police Station C.R. No.11202009220989/2022 Section-380, 454, 457, 427, 114 of I.P.C. Arrested on 15-08- 2022 / Bail granted on 26-09-2022 3. Jamnagar City ‘B’ Division Police Station C.R. No.11202009221624/2022 Section-323, 324, 504, 506(2) of I.P.C. Arrested on 05-12- 2022 / Bail granted on 06-12-2022 4. Jamnagar City ‘B’ Division Police Station C.R. No.11202009230858/2023 C.R. No.11202009230858/2023 Arrested on 03-07- 2023 / Bail granted on 04-07-2023 5. Jamnagar City ‘B’ Division Police Station C.R. No.11202009221624/2022 Section-323, 324, 504, 506(2) of I.P.C. Arrested on 05-12- 2022 / Bail granted on 06-12-2022 4. Jamnagar City ‘B’ Division Police Station C.R. No.11202009230858/2023 C.R. No.11202009230858/2023 Arrested on 03-07- 2023 / Bail granted on 04-07-2023 5. Jamnagar City ‘A’ Division Police Station C.R. No.11202008230767/2023 Section-323, 427, 452, 504, 114 of I.P.C., Section135(1) of G.P. Act Arrested on 04-07- 2023 / Bail granted on 07-07-2023 6. Jamnagar City ‘C’ Division Police Station C.R. No.11202002220804/2022 Section-324, 323, 504, 506(2) of I.P.C. Arrested on 03-06- 2022 / Bail granted on 04-06-2022 5.1 It would be appropriate to observe that first offence registered against the petitioner is of the year 2020 and thereafter, three offences have been registered in the year 2022, whereas two offences have been registered in the year 2023. In case of the offences registered in the year 2020, the petitioner was apprehended on 18-11-2020 and was enlarged on regular bail on 20-11-2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 03-06-2022 in connection with offences registered in the year 2022 with Jamnagar City ‘C’ Division Police Station and was enlarged on bail immediately 04-06-2022. Therefore, when the petitioner was apprehended in the year 2022 for second offence, there does not appear to be any proceedings undertaken by the concern Police for cancellation of bail of the petitioner in connection with offence, which was registered in the year 2020. The order of detention does not reflect application of mind to the fact that the detaining authority has considered whether the remedy of cancellation of bail would have been an effective alternate to curtail so called anti social activity of the petitioner 5.2 In that view of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4260 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 17 as under:- “17. In any case, the State is not without a remedy, as in case the detenu is much a menace to the society as is being alleged, then the prosecution should seek for the cancellation of his bail and/or move an appeal to the Higher Court. But definitely seeking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3. But definitely seeking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.3. The detaining authority has treated the offences registered against the petitioner to be sufficient to disturb public order. In this connection, it will be fruitful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1970 SC 852 ], where the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' has been clearly laid down. The Court observed as follows : “Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof ? It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act.” The perusal of the detention order does not indicate any attribution to the petitioner to which would affect the public order rather the registration of offences is an issue of "law and order" and not "Public Order" 5.4 Another point that the Court would like to consider is non-supply of legible documents along with the grounds of detention as Page No.83, 85, 115, 189 to 209. Part of the documents are hardly legible and in fact, this documents are part of the case papers of the cases against the petitioner. Therefore, when the Detaining Authority has relied upon such documents, it was the right of the petitioner to receive legible documents. 5.5 The Apex Court in case of Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand and another (supra) in Para-21, 22 and 23, the the Apex Court has held as under: “21. Thus, the legal position has been settled by this Court that the right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. 22. It is the admitted case of the parties that respondent no.1 has failed to question before the detaining authority that illegible or blurred copies were supplied to him which were relied upon while passing the order of detention, but the right to make representation being a fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution in order to make effective representation, the detenu is always entitled to be supplied with the legible copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority and such information made in the grounds of detention enables him to make an effective representation. 23. 23. Proceeding on the principles which have now been settled by this Court, it was specifically raised by the respondents in their writ petition and the reference has been made in para 9 of the petition referred to(supra) and in the pleadings on record, there was no denial in the counter filed by the appellants before the High Court that the documents which were supplied and relied upon by the detaining authority were legible and that has not denied respondent no.1 in making effective representation while questioning the order of detention and once this fact remain uncontroverted from the records as being placed before the High Court in writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the legal principles being settled, we find no substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants that merely because respondent no.1 has failed to raise this question before the detaining authority which go into root of the matter to take away the right vested in the appellant/detenu in assailing the order of detention while availing the remedy available to him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 5.6 With regard to the contention of reliance placed by the Detaining authority on stale offence, the fact of the case would indicate that first offence was registered in the year 2020 and remaining offences were registered in the year 2022 and 2023. Therefore, as is held by the Apex Court in case of Mallada K. Sri Ram (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held in Para-11 as under: “11. At this stage, it would also be material to note that the first case was registered on 15 October 2020, while the second case was registered on 17 December 2020. Bail was granted on 8 January 2021. The order of detention was passed on 19 May 2021 and was executed on 26 June 2021. The order of detention was passed nearly seven months after the registration of the first FIR and about five months after the registration of the second FIR. The order of detention is evidently based on stale material and demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the fact that the conditions which were imposed on the detenu, while granting bail, were duly fulfilled and there was no incidence of a further violation. The order of detention is evidently based on stale material and demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority to the fact that the conditions which were imposed on the detenu, while granting bail, were duly fulfilled and there was no incidence of a further violation. In the counter affidavit which was filed before the High Court, the detaining authority expressed only an apprehension that the acts on the basis of which the FIRs were registered were likely to be repeated in the future, thereby giving rise to an apprehension of a breach of public order. The High Court has failed to probe the existence of a live and proximate link between the past cases and the need to detain the detenu after seven months of registration of the first FIR and nearly five months of securing bail.” 5.7 In the instant case also, as the Detaining Authority has treated offence registered in the year 2020 to be relevant aspect for detention, it cannot be said that said offence can be disregarded and only offences, which are registered in the year 2022 and 2023, can be treated to be sufficient basis for maintaining detention against the petitioner. 6. In view of above, we are inclined to allow this petition, because simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authority cannot have recourse under the Act and no other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention No.GMJA/PASA/23/2023 dated 02-08-2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.