JUDGMENT : SAMIR J. DAVE, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner-detenue has prayed to quash and set aside the order of detention dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 (for short, 'the PASA Act') and to set him at liberty forthwith. 2. Learned advocate has submitted that the petitioner has been detained on the ground that he was involved in four I.P.C. offences. It is submitted that at the most, the activities of the petitioner would cause disturbance to the law and order situation but, under no circumstances, it could be said that the activities of the petitioner would cause breach of public order. 2.1 Learned advocate further submitted that there is delay in passing the order of detention inasmuch as in connection with the forth offence registered against the petitioner on 26.08.2023, he was arrested on 28.08.2023 and was released on bail on 26.09.2023 and the order of detention came to be passed belatedly on 06.10.2023 without resorting to the lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail. 3. This Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has been detained on the ground that four offences under the I.P.C. have been registered against him, the details of which are as under; Sr. No. Police Station, C.R. No., Date Section/s Date of Arrest/Date of release on bail 1 Vadaj Police Station C.R. No. 11191023220654/2022, Date: 23.09.2022 Sections 324, 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of IPC and S- 135(1) of G.P. Act. 25.09.2022/26.09.2022 2 Ellisbridge Police Station C.R. No. 11191014230024/2023, Date: 20.01.2023 Sections 324, 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of IPC and S- 135(1) of G.P. Act. 06.03.2023/07.03.2023 3 Ranip Police Station C.R. No. 11191002230097/2023, Date: 11.04.2023. Sections 324, 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of IPC and S- 135(1) of G.P. Act. 11.04.2023/12.04.2023 4 Ghatlodiya Police Station C.R. No. 11191044230293/2023, Date: 26.08.2023 Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 294(b) and 506(2) of IPC and S- 135(1) of G.P. Act. 28.08.2023/26.09.2023 4. Section 3 of the PASA Act speaks about the power to make orders for detaining certain persons. 11.04.2023/12.04.2023 4 Ghatlodiya Police Station C.R. No. 11191044230293/2023, Date: 26.08.2023 Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 294(b) and 506(2) of IPC and S- 135(1) of G.P. Act. 28.08.2023/26.09.2023 4. Section 3 of the PASA Act speaks about the power to make orders for detaining certain persons. It reads as under: “Sec.3 - Power to make orders detaining certain persons: (1) The State Government may if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. (2) If having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct that the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police, may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said subsection. (3) When any order is made under this section by an authorised officer, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government, together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, has a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. (4) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" when such person is engaged in or is making preparation for engaging in any activities, whether as a bootlegger or dangerous person or drug offender or immoral traffic offender or property grabber, which affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section, public order shall be deemed to have been affected adversely or shall be deemed likely to be affected adversely inter alia if any of the activities of any person referred to in this sub-section directly or indirectly, is causing or is likely to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property or public health." 5. In this connection, it is required to be referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [ AIR 1970 SC 852 ], where the distinction between “law and order” and “public order” has been laid down. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows : “Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof? It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under the powers vested in the executive authorities under the provisions of ordinary criminal law but the culprits cannot be detained on the ground that they were disturbing public order. The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large. In this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act.” 6. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the Preventive Detention Act but a disturbance which will affect public order comes within the scope of the Act.” 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the grounds of detention, in the opinion of this Court, the detaining authority has failed to substantiate that the alleged anti-social activities of the petitioner-detenue adversely affect or are likely to affect the maintenance of public order. Merely because four cases have been registered against the petitioner-detenue, that by itself, does not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. 7. Subjective satisfaction would stand vitiated, as is held in the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaik Nazeen v/s. State of Telangana and Ors. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4260 of 2022 dated 22.06.2022, wherein, in paragraph-17, it has been observed as under:- “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. But definitely seeking shelter under the preventive detention law is not the proper remedy under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 8. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order of detention dated 06.10.2023 passed by the respondent authority is hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner-detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.