JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for following relief:- “(A) Your Lordships be pleased to kindly admit and allow this petition. (B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directions or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention Dtd. 07/10/2023, passed by the respondent no.1 at Annexure “A” herein, and further your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent authority to release the petitioner forthwith from detention; (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition your Lordships be pleased to release the petitioner on parole. (D) Your Lordships be pleased to dispense with the filing of the petitioner’s affidavit as he is in jail;” 2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 07.10.2023, where the Detaining Authority has relied upon five offences registered with Bharuch (Rural), Bharuch City and Dahej Police Station respectively 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 at the outset has challenged the order of detention on the ground of delay in passing the order of detention. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 12-07-2023 and the detention order is passed after delay of three months on 07-10-2023. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Detaining Authority has not referred to as to how the activity of the petitioner is prejudicial to the public health, thereby disturbing the public order. In absence of subjective satisfaction in this regard, the Detaining Authority ought not to have invoked the detention law. 3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner though has been enlarged on regular bail, it was open for the Detaining Authority to resort to lessor drastic remedy. 4. Learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the grant of petition and has submitted that the petitioner is dealing with prohibited liquor and therefore, his activities is potential to affect the public health. 4. Learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the grant of petition and has submitted that the petitioner is dealing with prohibited liquor and therefore, his activities is potential to affect the public health. It is submitted that the Detaining Authority at the previous occasion, had also resorted to other remedies to curtail anti-social activities of the petitioner and reference is made to the order of externment in the year 2022. 4.1 Learned AGP has submitted that despite such action taken against the petitioner, the petitioner is continuing to indulge in such activities. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused only on the basis of investigation and the statement of co-accused. However, there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the order of detention dated 07.10.2023 indicates that the Detaining Authority has relied upon five offences registered under the provisions of the Prohibition Act, the details of which are as under: Sr. No. Police Station, and Section F.I.R. No Section 1. Bharuch (Rural) Police Station C.R.No.11199011230320/2023, Date: 08-06-2023 Section-65(A), 65(E), 98(2), 81, 116 (B) the Prohibition Act 2. Bharuch City Police Station C.R.No.11199012230291/2023, Date: 17-05-2023 Section-65(A), 65(E), 81, 98(2) of the Prohibition Act 3. Dahej Police Station C.R.No.11199016220008/2022, Date: 03-01-2022 Section-65(A)(A) of the Prohibition Act 4. Dahej Police Station C.R.No.11199016220060/2022, Date: 19-01-2022 Section-65(A)(E) of the Prohibition Act 5. Dahej Police Station C.R.No.11199016230551/2023, Date: 09-07-2023 Section-65(A)(E), 81 of the Prohibition Act 6.1 The Court has taken into consideration the tabular form, as is stated herein above and it appears that the petitioner has been dealing with prohibited liquor and there is nothing on record to indicate that consumption of such prohibited liquor has lead to large scale adverse effect to the health of the public and therefore, it cannot be said that there is disturbance in the public order. 6.2 The order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents placed along with grounds of detention do not indicate as to how the consumption of liquor has adversely affected the public at large. The petitioner has been arrested in each of the offences and has been enlarged on regular bail by the Magistrate Court. 6.2 The order of detention, the grounds of detention and the documents placed along with grounds of detention do not indicate as to how the consumption of liquor has adversely affected the public at large. The petitioner has been arrested in each of the offences and has been enlarged on regular bail by the Magistrate Court. 6.3 Last of the offence; page-191 would indicate that the petitioner has been released on bail, when he submitted his bail bonds on 12-07-2023 and it is thereafter on 07-10-2023, the order of detention has been passed and therefore, there is delay of appropriately three months. The Apex Court in the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reported in AIR 2022 S.C. 4715 has indicated that the delay, if unexplained, and would amount to failure to curtail anti-social activities of the petitioner and would therefore be fatal to the order of detention. The Apex Court 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. 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. 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. 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.” 6.4 The Court has also considered the fact that the petitioner in each of the offence, has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction and thereafter, there is no reference to either to objecting to the grant of bail to the petitioner, as he is having antecedents nor there is any reference to cancel bail granted to the petitioner in view of his committing the offence at subsequent stage. Only reference is made to arrive at subjective satisfaction by the Detaining Authority is that as and when the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he shall continue to commit such offence. 6.5 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.” 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 07.10.2023 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.