( 1 ) THE petitioner Amrat Ramabhai Vaghari, came to be preventively detained as a bootlegger within the meaning of the PASAA-1985, vide the orders dated July 29, 1994, pronounced by the Commissioner of Police, ahmedabad City, Respondent No. 1 herein. The said orders of detention are under challenge in the present petition.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel Ms. Kachhavah who appears on behalf of the petitioner while placing reliance upon the Supreme Court decisions in case of Piyush Kantilal mehta v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and Anr. , AIR 1989 SC 491 : [1989 (1) glr 563 (SC)] and in case of Shri Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M. M. Mehta, commissioner of Police and Ors. , 1995 (3) SCC 237 : [1995 (2) GLR 1268 (SC)], urges that, even if the allegation made against the petitioner-detenu are accepted on the face value, then also it cannot be said that the alleged activity on the part of the petitioner-detenu had a reach on public order situation. The learned Counsel, therefore, urges that this petition requires a complete recognition.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel points out, placing reliance upon the grounds of detention bearing even date, that two prohibition cases came to be registered against the detenu at Madhavpura police station. In C. R. No. 321 of 1994 the alleged recovery is of 520 litres of country liquor. In the other case, namely, C. R. No. 330 of 1994 the alleged recovery is of 19 litres of the country liquor. The grounds of detention would also show two instances which had allegedly taken place on July 17, 1994 and July 07, 1994. The first incident alleges that the petitioner-detenu was present, with his associates near Shahpur warehouse and at that time he had threatened the witness believing him to be a police agent and later on he was assaulted upon. It is said that a crowd had collected on the spot and that at that time the petitionerdetenu had shown him the razor and, therefore, there was a stampede in the crowd. The second incident dated July 07, 1994, would say that, on that day at about 7 p. m. the witness was asked by the petitioner-detenu to store a particular quantity of the liquor and on his refusal to do so, he was assaulted upon and a crowd was collected. The petitioner-detenu had taken out the knife and therefore, there was a stampede in the crowd.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel Ms. Kachhavah places reliance upon the Supreme Court decision in Piyush Kantilal Mehta (supra) with a view to urge that, it has been well settled that the detenu might be a bootlegger within the meaning of Sec. 2 (b) of the PASAA but merely because he is a bootlegger, he cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the Act unless his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. The learned Counsel points out that, in the said decision before the Supreme Court huge quantities of foreign made liquor, namely, 21,795 ml. and 1,39,750 ml. came to be recovered. Yet the view expressed by the Supreme Court is that, this alleged activity on the part of the petitioner-detenu cannot be said to have a reach on the public order. The Supreme Court decision in Piyush Kantilal Mehtas case (supra) also considers various statements recorded by the sponsoring authority to show that the activities on the part of the detenu had the reach on the public order. In the instant case, as noticed above, the quantity allegedly recovered by the investigating agency while registering two cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, is not to that extent which it was before the Supreme Court. The view would be taken as has been taken in catena of decisions that these activities even accepted to the fullest extent can be said to have a reach on the public order situation. As pointed out, the Supreme Court has considered the facts emerging from the statements recorded by the sponsoring authority. The statements were to the effect that the petitioner -detenu was a high-handed man of