JUDGMENT : A.Y. Kogje, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “(a) to allow this Application; (b) to issue a writ of habeas corpus and/or any other writ, order or directions, quashing the order of detention bearing No.DM/DCH/PASA/13/2023 dated 09.08.2023 passed by the respondent no.2- District Magistrate, Devbhoomi Dhwarka and to set the petitioner at liberty; (c) to dispense with the filing of affidavit as the petitioner is in jail;” 2. The challenge is to the order of detention dated 09.08.2023 passed by the respondent– detaining authority viz. the District Magistrate, Devbhoomi Dwarka, 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. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that though the detaining authority has extensively referred to the statement of secret witness, which was recorded and verifying by the detaining authority, yet the same are not supplied alongwith the grounds of detention, and this itself is a ground sufficient to set aside the order of detention. 4. Additionally, learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that there is delay of 21 days in passing the order of detention, if the date on which the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail is taken into consideration. 5. As against that, learned AGP has objected to grant of the petition by submitting that the petitioner has been arraigned earlier also as an accused in three offences, falling under Chapters 16 and 17 of the IPC and therefore, has rightly been treated as habitual offender and a ’Dangerous Person’. 6. In so far as the issue with regards to non-supply of statement of the secret witness is concerned, learned AGP makes a statement under instructions that grounds of detention do not contain the statement of secret witnesses. This factual verification has been given by the learned AGP upon communication dated 04.03.2024 from the concerned In-charge, District Magistrate, Devbhoomi Dwarka, which is placed on record and the same is taken on record. 7. This factual verification has been given by the learned AGP upon communication dated 04.03.2024 from the concerned In-charge, District Magistrate, Devbhoomi Dwarka, which is placed on record and the same is taken on record. 7. Having herd learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, the petitioner has been detained as ‘dangerous person’ by the impugned order of detention dated 09.08.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Devbhoomi Dwarka. The detention order at various stages has referred to the statement of secret witness recorded by the sponsoring authority and on which the reliance is placed by the detaining authority to bring the activities of the petitioner in the definition of ‘Dangerous Person’ as contemplated under section 2(C) of PASA. Such reference is also made in Para No.1 and again in para No.6 of the detention order, where the detaining authority has referred to the statement of secret witnesses and the verification being carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Devbhoomi Dwarka, District Devbhoomi Dwarka and from such verification of statement, the detaining authority arrived at subjective satisfaction that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused persons was habitual in committing offences, and that the member of general public out of fear did not report any FIR or complainant against him. It is pertinent to note that alongwith grounds of detention, the documents supplied consists of an index of the documents supplied by the sponsoring authority alongwith its pasa proposal No.1/2023, wherein at item No.29, reference is made to the statement of secret witnesses in sealed cover. From the record, it appears that the petitioner having placed all the documents containing accompanying the grounds of detention on record, the statement of secret witnesses either in the sealed cover or otherwise are not found alongwith documents. Therefore, the Court has categorically inquired from the learned AGP in this connection, to which learned AGP has placed a written communication on record to indicate that the grounds of detention did not contain the statement of secret witnesses. Therefore, the Court has categorically inquired from the learned AGP in this connection, to which learned AGP has placed a written communication on record to indicate that the grounds of detention did not contain the statement of secret witnesses. In the opinion of the Court, this singular ground is sufficient to vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, as though detaining authority time and again in the order of detention has referred to the statement of the secret witnesses being recorded and verification being carried out, such documents are not even part of the record and therefore, questions the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. 8. One more aspect which requires reference in this order is that the detaining authority in the order of detention has observed that the statement of the secret witnesses was recorded by the sponsoring authority and verified by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the concerned division of District Devbhoomi Dwarka. In the opinion of the Court that the verification as contemplated under section 9 of PASA is required to be undertaken by the detaining authority as after all it is the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority with regards to the existence of the secret witness and their statements being recorded, whereas in the present case, the detaining authority is quite different than the authority which has verified the statement of the secret witnesses. This also is a ground on which the detention proceedings and the order require to be quashed and set aside. 9. The Court has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been enlarged by the Court of proper jurisdiction where the option of alternative remedy of cancellation of bail was available to the sponsoring authority, which the sponsoring authority has not resorted to and hence, as is held in recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen vs. State of Telanga and Ors. reported in (2023) 9 SCC 633 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 17:- “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. 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.” 10. 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. 11. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 09.08.2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 12. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.