JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs: (i) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to admit this petition; (ii) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction and quashing and set aside the detention Order dated 25.09.2023 in P.C.B./Detention/Pasa/526/2023; (iii) XXXX (iv) XXXX 2. The challenge is to the impugned order of detention dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, City Ahmedabad. The detaining authority has relied upon two offences under the Prohibition Act registered with DCB Police Station and Sardarnagar Police Station respectively. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that though the detaining authority has concluded that the activity of the petitioner in dealing with the prohibited liquor is dangerous for the public health but there is no evidence or material on the record to indicate that the public health on account of the activity of the petitioner has been damaged consequently committing breach of the public order. 4. Learned advocate has submitted that the detaining authority has also referred to and relied upon the two previous detention orders passed in the year 2021 and 2022 respectively, however, the details as well as documents pertaining to such two previous orders of detention are not supplied along with the ground of detention. Moreover, the order of detention passed in the year 2021 was revoked upon the recommendation of the Advisory Board, and therefore, such material cannot be considered as material relevant for the purpose of detaining. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of “Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan v/s. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad and others reported in (1989) 3 Supreme Court Cases Page-590, particularly, referring to para 6 and 7. 5. Learned A.G.P. has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that the petitioner has been indulging in the offences of Prohibition, because of which, earlier also on two occasions, the petitioner was detained and after the indulgence shown by revoking the order of detention, the petitioner has been continued to indulge in similar offences as in the year 2023 successively two offences have been registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the detaining authority was justified in holding the petitioner to be a bootlegger as defined under the provisions of PASA. 6. Therefore, the detaining authority was justified in holding the petitioner to be a bootlegger as defined under the provisions of PASA. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, the petitioner has been detained as bootlegger by an order of detention dated 25.09.2023 by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and the grounds of detention would indicate that the detaining authority has relied upon two offences registered with DCB Police Station and Sardarnagar Police Station respectively, details of which in tabular form are as under: Sr No Name of police station and Crime register number and date Sections Date of arrest Date of releasing on bail 1 D.C.B. Police Station Prohibition C.R. No. 11191011230069/ 2023 Date: 20.03.2023 Sections 65AE, 116B, 81, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act 25.04.2023 19.04.2023 2 Sardarnagar Police Station Prohibition C.R.No. 11191040231936/ 2023 Date: 27.08.2023 Sections 66B, 65AE, 81, 116B of the Prohibition Act 31.08.2023 22.09.2023 7. From the details as afore-stated it is apparent that the first offence was registered at DCB Police Station was in the month of March 2023, and thereafter, the second offence was registered at Sardarnagar Police Station in the month of August 2023, and therefore, there appears to be the gap of five months for which, the petitioner cannot be treated as frequently indulging in the offences. 8. The Court has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was enlarged in the offence of DCB Police Station on an anticipatory bail on 19.04.2023 and in connection with Sardarnagar Police Station on 22.09.2023, whereas the sponsoring authority nor the State has initiated any proceedings for cancellation of bail, however, the detaining authority has expressed subjective satisfaction only on the ground that the petitioner if enlarged on regular bail will indulge into similar offence, and therefore, there is non-application of mind of the detaining authority to the lesser drastic remedy available to preclude the petitioner from indulging in any antisocial activity. 9. In recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors and Syed Sabeena v/ s. State of Telangana and Ors. reported in 2023(9) SCC-633, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 19 :- “19. 9. In recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telanga and Ors and Syed Sabeena v/ s. State of Telangana and Ors. reported in 2023(9) SCC-633, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made following observations in para 19 :- “19. 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. Lastly the court has taken into consideration the submission made by learned advocate that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would stand vitiated in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Jahangirkhan Fazalkhan Pathan (Supra) wherein in Para 6 and 7, the court has held as as under : “6. Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of this court in Abdul Latif Abdul Waheb Sheikh v.B.K. Jha and Anr., [1987] 2 SCC 22 and in Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar v. Shri N.L. Kalna & Ors., JT1989 (1) SC 572 it is therefore, clear that an order of detention cannot be made after considering the previous grounds of detention when the same had been quashed by the court, and if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consideration while forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in making a detention order the order of detention will be vitiated. It is of no consequence if the further fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of the impugned detention order have been considered. 7. In the present case, admittedly in the grounds of detention specific reference has been made to the earlier two orders of detention made in 1985 and 1986 against the petitioner. It is also evident that in the schedule of documents annexed to the grounds of detention not only the copies of the order of detention but nor the grounds of detention in the earlier detention cases have been given to the petitioner. It is also evident that in the schedule of documents annexed to the grounds of detention not only the copies of the order of detention but nor the grounds of detention in the earlier detention cases have been given to the petitioner. It also appears from the statements made in the grounds of detention that the detaining authority took into consideration the previous grounds of detention as well as the orders made therein even though the same were nullified by the High Court as well as by the Advisory Body, presumably, for the purpose of showing that the detenu inspite of those earlier orders of detention was continuing his bootlegging activities. It is contended on behalf of the detaining authority that though the earlier two detention orders have been mentioned in the grounds of detention and the copy of the orders passed in the previous detention cases as well as the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu yet these were not at all considered by him in forming subjective satisfaction for pass the order of detention. This submission cannot be sustained in view of the statements made in the grounds of detention.” 11. And therefore, as is held by the Apex Court, relianced by the detaining authority upon the previous order of detention without supplying the necessary documents and referring to the ultimate outcome that has come on record by way of the submission made by the learned advocate at bar that the previous order of detention have been either revoked by the State Government or set aside. In view of the aforesaid also, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would stand vitiated. 12. 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. 13. In the result, this Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 25.09.2023 passed by the respondent authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.