JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order of detention dated 29.09.2023 for following relief:- “(A) Admit this Special Civil Application. (B) Allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order Kramank/DC/PASA/SR/14/2023 of detention at Annexure-‘A’ dt. 29/09/2023 passed by the respondent no.2 & connected proceedings. (C) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this Special Civil Application, grant stay as to the further implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order Kramank/DC/PASA/SR/14/2023 of detention at Annexure-‘A’ dt.29/09/2023 passed by the respondent no.2 & connected proceedings.” 2. At the outset, it is observed that pursuant to the order dated 08-01-2024 issuing Rule in the matter, on behalf of the State, Affidavit of the Detaining Authority is placed on record giving explanation with regard to the non-mentioning of relevant Circular issued by the State Government, which are required to be referred to before passing the order of detention. Such explanation is accepted by the Court. 3. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 29.09.2023 by the Detaining Authority namely District Magistrate, Gandhinagar by which the petitioner has been detained as “bootlegger”. The grounds of detention would indicate that the petitioner has been detained as “bootlegger” on the basis of two offences registered with Pethapur 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. 3.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has primarily challenged the order of detention on the ground of delay. According to the petitioner, the Detaining Authority has committed delay of 2 months and 24 days in passing the order of detention, which will be fatal to the detention. 3.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the Detaining Authority has failed to indicate in the grounds of detention, as to in which manner, so called anti-social activities of the petitioner is detrimental to the public health and therefore, is a breach in public order. It is submitted that this argument is made on the ground that the Detaining Authority had option of resorting to lessor drastic remedy of cancellation of bail rather than passing the order of detention. 4. It is submitted that this argument is made on the ground that the Detaining Authority had option of resorting to lessor drastic remedy of cancellation of bail rather than passing the order of detention. 4. Learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the grant of petition and has submitted that as the petitioner was indulged in two offences of similar nature under the Prohibition Act and therefore, would clearly fall in the definition of “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act. 5. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that while accepting the explanation offered by the Detaining Authority in the present case, the Court proceeds to observe that the Guidelines laid down pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, are required to be complied with scrupulously and it is evident from the grounds of detention, which are placed collectively at Annexure-A to the petition, wherein grounds of detention are highly insufficient to meet with requirement of Guidelines, which are issued by the State pursuant to the various directions of this Court as well as the Apex Court. The Court finds that no sufficient reasons are addressed in the grounds of detention, so as to justify various grounds, on which the detention order is based. 5.1 It is expected that henceforth the Detaining Authority shall strictly comply with requirement of law in letter and spirit and not by merely mentioning and using the language of the guidelines, before passing the order of detention. 5.2 The Court has taken into consideration that the petitioner has been detained by the Detaining Authority namely District Magistrate, Gandhinagar as “bootlegger” by order dated 29.09.2023 by relying upon two offences, registered with Pethapur Police Station under the provisions of the Prohibition Act, the details of which are in tabular as under: Sr. No. Police Station, F.I.R. No. Section Date of arrest of accused Date of bail granted to the accused 1. Pethapur Police Station, C.R.No.1216010230193/202 3 Section-65(A)(E), 81, 83 of the Prohibition Act 31-05-2023 07-06-2023 2. No. Police Station, F.I.R. No. Section Date of arrest of accused Date of bail granted to the accused 1. Pethapur Police Station, C.R.No.1216010230193/202 3 Section-65(A)(E), 81, 83 of the Prohibition Act 31-05-2023 07-06-2023 2. Pethapur Police Station, C.R. No.1121610230258/2023 Section-65(E), 81 of the Prohibition Act 02-07-2023 05-07-2023 5.3 From the chronology, it appears that the first offence, which was registered with Pethapur Police Station, the petitioner was arrested on 31- 05-2023 and the documents along with the grounds of detention would indicate on Page-53 that the petitioner was enlarged on bail by order dated 07-06-2023. Similarly, another offence registered at Pethapur Police Station, the petitioner was arrested on 02-07-2023 and was enlarged on bail on 05-07-2023. 5.4 Thereafter, the petitioner has been detained under the order dated 29-09-2023 and therefore, there is delay of 2 months and 24 days in passing the order of detention. The grounds of detention nor Affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority has referred to reasons, for which the delay has occurred, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 5.5 The delay of 2 months and 24 days would therefor, be fatal to the order of detention. 5.6 The Court has taken into consideration the fact that the Detaining Authority has merely mentioned the activity prohibited under the Prohibition Act would in future result in damage to the public order. But, the grounds of detention is lacking in all material particular or any material in the form of data or FSL Report, which would justify that so called anti-social activities of the petitioner has in fact resulted into financial difficulty faced by the public at large, consumption of liquor in large scale in public at large and thereby adversely affecting public health at large. In absence of any material for the aforesaid parameters, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the public order is breached by the anti-social activities of the petitioner would stand vitiated. 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. 7. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention No.DC/PASA/SR/14/2023 dated 29.09.2023 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. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. The Copy of the Order be served upon the Detaining authority for the compliance of the observation made in para 5 and 5.1 of the Judgment.