JUDGMENT : (A.Y. Kogje, J.) 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for following relief:- “A. Your Lordship be pleased to Admit and allow this Special Civil Application be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, order direction to the detaining authority to release the petitioner from the illegal detention. B. Your Lordship be pleased to quash and set aside the order of detention passed by Respondent No.2 on dtd: 23/09/2023 vide PCB/PASA/DTN/525/2023 under the PASA Act.” 2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 23.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, where the Detaining Authority has relied upon three offences registered with Sardarnagar Police Station under the provisions of the Prohibition Act and treated the petitioner to be “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that offences on which the Detaining Authority has relied upon in the grounds of detention are stale offences and in fact, it is only one offence, which was registered on 29-06-2023 that the order of detention has been passed and therefore, essentially, it is the order of detention passed on solitary offence. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Detaining Authority has referred to two offences, which were registered in the year 2021 and therefore, reliance is placed on stale offences, which according to the learned Advocate is impermissible. 3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has lastly submitted that the petitioner was enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with the offence registered in the year 2021. Despite this, the Detaining Authority or the Sponsoring Authority being the same, have not resorted to lessor drastic remedy available by cancelling the anticipatory bail. 4. Learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the grant of petition and has submitted that there are three offences registered against the petitioner within Commissionerate and therefore, he falls under the provisions of the Prohibition Act and therefore, rightly termed as “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act. 4.1 Learned AGP has submitted that on previous three occasions, the petitioner was detained for the similar offence and therefore, despite indulgence being shown by the State, the petitioner has continued his anti-social activities. 5. 4.1 Learned AGP has submitted that on previous three occasions, the petitioner was detained for the similar offence and therefore, despite indulgence being shown by the State, the petitioner has continued his anti-social activities. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that though the reference is made to three previous Detention Orders, according to the petitioner, in each of detention, order of detention was either revoked by the State or by the Advisory Board. The petitioner has also preferred the petition before this Court, which came to be withdrawn on account of revocation of the earlier order of detention. It is submitted that despite this being subsequent development, the Detaining Authority has not taken into consideration such details and therefore, has failed to apply its mind to the relevant circumstances. 6. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the order of detention dated 23.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City indicates that the Detaining Authority has relied upon three offences registered under the provisions of the Prohibition Act, the details of which are as under: Sr. No. Police Station, F.I.R. No. and Date of offence Section Date of arrest of accused Date of bail granted to the accused 1. Sardarnagar Police Station, C.R. No.11191040210776 /2021, Date: 22-03- 2021 66(B), 65(E), 81, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act 03-09-2023 28-05-2021 2. Sardarnagar Police Station, C.R. No.11191040211772 /2021, Date: 20-06- 2021 66(1)(B), 65(A)(E), 116(B), 81 of the Prohibition Act 03-09-2023 17-01-2023 3. Sardarnagar Police Station, C.R. No.11191040231507 /2023, Date: 29-06- 2023 65(A)(E), 166(B), 98(2), 81 of the Prohibition Act 01-09-2023 13-09-2023 6.1 It would be appropriate to observe that first two offences mentioned in the aforesaid table were registered on 22-03-2021 and 20- 06-2021 respectively, whereas third offence, which triggered the detention proceedings was registered on 29-06-2023 and therefore, gap between triggering offence and earlier two offences is appropriately two years. In the opinion of the Court, the Detaining Authority has relied upon stale offence to arrive at subjective satisfaction and as is held by the Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reported in AIR 2022 S.C. 4715 has observed as under; “11. In the opinion of the Court, the Detaining Authority has relied upon stale offence to arrive at subjective satisfaction and as is held by the Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reported in AIR 2022 S.C. 4715 has observed as under; “11. We are persuaded to allow this appeal on the following two grounds: (i) Delay in passing the order of detention from the date of proposal thereby snapping the "live and proximate link" between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention & failure on the part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner. (ii) The detaining authority remained oblivious of the fact that in both the criminal cases relied upon by the detaining authority for the purpose of passing the order of detention, the appellant detenu was ordered to be released on bail by the special court. The detaining authority remained oblivious as this material and vital fact of the appellant detenu being released on bail in both the cases was suppressed or rather not brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority at the time of forwarding the proposal to pass the appropriate order of preventive detention. DELAY IN PASSING THE ORDER OF DETENTION 12. We may recapitulate the necessary facts which have a bearing so far as the issue of delay is concerned. The proposal to take steps to preventively detain the appellant at the end of the Superintendent of Police addressed to the Superintendent of Police (C/S) West Tripura, Agartala is dated 28th of June 2021. The proposal in turn forwarded by the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Crime) on behalf of the Director General to the Secretary, Home Department is dated 14.07.2021. The order of detention is dated 12th of November, 2021. There is no explanation worth the name why it took almost five months for the detaining authority to pass the order of preventive detention. 13. There is indeed a plethora of authorities explaining the purpose and the avowed object of preventive detention in express and explicit language. We think that all those decisions of this Court on this aspect need not be recapitulated and recited. 13. There is indeed a plethora of authorities explaining the purpose and the avowed object of preventive detention in express and explicit language. We think that all those decisions of this Court on this aspect need not be recapitulated and recited. But it would suffice to refer to the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ors., (1982) 2 SCC 403 , wherein the following observation is made: "Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing." 14. In view of the above object of the preventive detention, it becomes very imperative on the part of the detaining authority as well as the executing authorities to remain vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in passing the detention order at the earliest from the date of the proposal and executing the detention order because any indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing authority would defeat the very purpose of the preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings. 15. The adverse effect of delay in arresting a detenu has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and this Court has laid down the rule in clear terms that an unreasonable and unexplained delay in securing a detenu and detaining him vitiates the detention order. In the decisions we shall refer hereinafter, there was a delay in arresting the detenu after the date of passing of the order of detention. However, the same principles would apply even in the case of delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the proposal. The common underlying principle in both situations would be the "live & proximate link" between the grounds of detention & the avowed purpose of detention. xxxxx 20. However, the same principles would apply even in the case of delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the proposal. The common underlying principle in both situations would be the "live & proximate link" between the grounds of detention & the avowed purpose of detention. xxxxx 20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention & actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and consequently render the detention order bad and invalid because the "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 21. In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the sponsoring authority was indifferent in passing the order of detention with greater promptitude. The "live and proximate link" between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped in arresting the detenu. More importantly the delay has not been explained in any manner & though this point of delay was specifically raised & argued before the High Court as evident from Para 14 of the impugned judgment yet the High Court has not recorded any finding on the same.” 6.2 The Court has taken into consideration the aspect, which is reflected in the tabular form is in connection with two offences registered in the year 2021, where the petitioner appears to have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Court of appropriate jurisdiction by 28-05-2021, wherein condition was specified to remain present before the Investigating Officer within period of 10 days of the passing of the order. However, the documents annexed along with the ground of detention indicate that the petitioner had furnished his bail pursuant to the anticipatory bail order only on 03-09-2023. However, the documents annexed along with the ground of detention indicate that the petitioner had furnished his bail pursuant to the anticipatory bail order only on 03-09-2023. This particular fact was sufficient for the Sponsoring Authority i.e. to say Sardarnagar Police Station to initiate appropriate proceedings declaring the petitioner as absconder or resorting to cancellation of bail. 6.3 In recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen Vs. State of Telanga & Ors. reported in 2023 (9) SCC 633 , the Supreme Court has made following observations in para-19:- “19. In any case, the State is not without a remedy, as in case the detenue 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. 6.4 In the opinion of the Court, subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority would stand vitiated on this count. 6.5 The Court has taken into consideration the submission made by the State with regard to previous detention order. However, when it is brought to the notice of this Court that all three detention orders were interfered with by either the Advisory Board or by the State itself, in the opinion of the Court, such material would be relevant material, despite this, no reference has been made to the subsequent development with regard to the previous detention order and therefore, subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority would stand vitiated. 7. 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. 8. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention No.PCB/DTN/PASA/525/2023 dated 23.09.2023 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. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.