( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against dismissal of SCA No. 2480 of 1999 by the learned Single Judge on 18/08/1999. The appellant was the original petitioner. In exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"),the detenu was detained on 10/01/1999 by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad stating therein that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, he was required to be detained.

( 2 ) ON the same day, grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu inter alia alleging therein that he can be termed as "bootlegger" as contemplated by Section 2 (b) of the Act. Against him, three cases were registered on 23/04/199 8/05/1998 and 17/05/1998. It appears that two statements were also recorded on 7/01/1999 and 8/01/1999 respectively. The first witness stated that on 1/12/1998 at about 4 p. m. , when he was at his residence, the detenu in the company of his associates came there and asked the witness to keep the liquor in his house. On refusal by the witness, the detenu got excited and attacked him. On the shout by the witness, a number of persons from the nearby locality came there but the detenu threatened them by point of knife stating that if they would come to rescue the witness, they would also be beaten. It resulted into panic in the nearby vicinity. Even tempo of life was also disturbed.

( 3 ) THE second witness stated that on 20/12/1998, at about 8 a. m. , he was passing from Chandrabhanu cinema. At that time, the detenu stopped him and alleged that he was police informer and was supplying information to the police regarding activities of the detenu. Detenu then started beating him and on shout by the witness, several persons assembled there , but they were also threatened by the detenu. Even tempo of life was disturbed. It also affected public order.

( 4 ) THE detaining authority then stated in the grounds of detention that looking to the anti social activities of the detenu , it was not possible to take action in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Police Act or under the Bombay Prohibition Act. As he was satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from continuing anti social activities, it was necessary to detain him, an order of detention was passed.

( 5 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge , it was urged by the learned counsel for the detenu that there was non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in upholding privilege under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act and names and particulars of the witnesses were withheld from the detenu which had deprived the detenu of making effective representation which was violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.

( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge after perusing the affidavit in reply filed by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) , Gujarat State, held that the privilege was rightly claimed by the detaining authority and exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act could not be said to be illegal and subjective satisfaction was not vitiated. Petition was, therefore, dismissed.

( 7 ) BEFORE us, various contentions were raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that there was gross delay in passing the order of detention inasmuch as though the last registered case against the detenu was of May 1998, order of detention was passed as late as on 10/01/1999. Hence, there was no causal connection and live link between the activities of the detenu and the order of detention. It was submitted that the acts in question at the most can be said to have affected "law and order" and not "public order", and hence, the power of detention could not have been exercised by the detaining authority. It was stated that the detenu was in custody. It was,therefore, not necessary for the detaining authority to pass an order of detention. In substance and in