JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for following relief:- “(B) BE PLEASED to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dtd. 23/9/2023 at annexure A passed by the police commissioner Surat city, vide Number PCB/PASA/DTN/796/2023, i.e. the Respondent No.2 herein and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner from detention forthwith and set at free, in the interest of justice.” 2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 23.09.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act based on two offences registered against him, details of which are as under:- Sr. No. Name of Police Station CR No. and date Sections Date of Bail order 1 Althana Police Station PART-C- 11210069230014 of 2023 dated 02.01.2023 65(A)(E), 81, 116(B) of the Prohibition Act 02.01.2023 2 Althana Police Station PART-C- 11210069230566 of 2023 dated 30.07.2023 65(A)(E), 81, 116(B) of the Prohibition Act 21.09.2023 3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on as registration of the offences under Sections of the Prohibition Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(b) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder. 3.1 It is submitted that there is no FSL report on the record so as to establish that the prohibited liquor is harmful to public health. 4. Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenue indicate that detenue is in habit of indulging into the activity as defined under section 2(b) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court. The State has chosen not to file counter affidavit/reply so as to justify the action invoking provisions of the PASA Act. 5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR/s cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations as have been levelled against the detenue cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the detenue within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act. Unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the person has become a threat and menace to the Society so as to disturb the whole tempo of the society and that all social apparatus is in peril disturbing public order at the instance of such person, it cannot be said that the detenue is a person within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act. Except general statements, there is no material on record which shows that the detenue is acting in such a manner, which is dangerous to the public order. 6. The Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction and the detention order does not reflect application of mind to the fact that the Detaining Authority has considered cancellation of bail to be ineffective method to curtail activities of the petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the Detaining Authority not having taken into consideration the cancellation of bail option. The subjective satisfaction would stand vitiated as is held in recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors. reported in 2023 (9) SCC 633 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 19 as under:- “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.” 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 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. 8. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention 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.