( 1 ) ). The petitioner-detenu Samjibhai Manjibhai Patel, by filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. challenges the orders of detention pronounced by the Commissioner of Police, city of Ahmedabad, respondent No. 1 herein, Annexure a dtd. 26/09/1991, saying that, the petitioner-detenu requires to be preventively detained under the provisions of PASAA 1985.

( 2 ) ). The orders of detention dated 26/09/1991 and the grounds of detention bearing even date have been duly furnished to the petitionerdetenu. The reference to the grounds of detention would go to show that nowhere it has been stated that the petitioner-detenu is a "dangerous person" within the meaning of Sec. 2 (c) of the PASAA 1985. Any how, the mention of certain criminal cases registered against the petitionerdetenu and the recital in respect of certain statements recorded by the Sponsoring authority would go to show that the petitioner-detenu has been treated as a "dangerous person" within the meaning of Sec. 2 (c) of PASAA 1985. The subjective satisfaction arrived at, by the Detaining Authority, is that the activities of the petitioner-detenu affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of the public order. It appears that the above said subjective satisfaction has been reached on the basis of four criminal cases registered against the petitioner -detenu at Bapunagar Police Station in respect of the theft of motor vehicles, namely Hero Honda Motor Cycles. It is also averred in the grounds of detention that the petitioner-detenu is fierce and headstrong person, picks up quarrels with the citizens and threatens them of dire consequences and thus his activities affect or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of the public order.

( 3 ) ). The foremost contention raised by the learned Advocate Miss Kachhavah appearing on behalf of the petitioner-detenu is, that firstly the Detaining authority was required to record the subjective satisfaction to the effect that the petition. ir-detinu is a "dangerous person" within the meaning of Sec. 2 (c) of the PASAA 1985 and secondly that his activities affect or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of the public order. But in the submissions of Miss Kachhavah, none of the above said two ingredients can be elicited from the subjective satisfaction allegedly recorded by the Detaining Authority, vitiating the orders of detention.

( 4 ) ). When reference is made to the relevant provisions of the PASAA 1985, it would become clear that the Act has been meant for the preventive detention of bootleggers, dangerous persons, drug offenders. immoral traffic offenders and property grabbers, with a view to prevent them from indulging into anti-social and dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Section 3 of the Act 1985 would further go to show that though there is a deeming provision contained under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 3, the detaining Authority has got to record a subjective satisfaction, that the detenu who is either a bootlegger or a dangerous person or belongs to any other category of person, as described and defined in the definition clauses, acts in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. A bare reading of the definition clause and the provisions contained under Sec. 3 of the act 1985 would go to show that person cannot be detained under the relevant provisions of the PASAA 1985 unless and until, the Detaining Authority is subjectively satisfied that the detenu falls in one of the above said categories and that his activities are such that they affect or are likely to affect the maintenance of the public order. The Scheme of the Act is so eloquently clear, that no assistance of case law in this respect would be required to support or strengthen this view, culminating from a bare reading. Any how certain Supreme Court pronouncements in this respect can be seen. In piyush Kantilal Mehta v. Commi