( 1 ) THE Commissioner of Police, Vadodara city, Vadodara passed an order on 1 2/02/1999 in exercise of powers under sub-section [2] of section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 [for short, `the PASA Act] detaining the petitioner under the PASA Act. The grounds of detention reveal that the detaining authority took into consideration two of the offences registered against the petitioner. The authority also considered that the petitioner acts in a high-handed manner and has formed a gang for pursuing his illegal activities. The authority verified the statements of two witnesses whose identity has not been disclosed in exercise of powers u/s 9[2] of the PASA Act and recorded a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is engaged in illegal and antisocial activities endangering the life and property of public and people have fear and apprehension from him, as a result of which, people are not prepared to come forward and lodge a complaint against the petitioner. The detaining authority, therefore, considered the detention as the only remedy that can be resorted to in order to deter the petitioner from pursuing his illegal activities.

( 2 ) THE petitioner made a representation which was considered and turned down.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has therefore approached this Court with this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner in the petition has taken many grounds to challenge the order of detention.

( 4 ) MR. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has assailed the order of detention, only on the ground that the subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority for the need for exercise powers u/s 9[2] of the PASA Act and claim of privilege is not well founded and has, therefore, resulted in infringement of the petitioners right of making an effective representation guaranteed by the Constitution. Mr. Prajapati submitted that the detaining authority has simply re-recorded the statements of the witnesses, but has shown nothing to indicate that the detaining authority has in fact independently verified and has arrived at an independent subjective satisfaction that the fear expressed by the witnesses qua the detenue is correct and / or that the incidents, narrated by the witness have in fact occured.

( 5 ) MR. Prajapati, learned Advocate, pressed into service the decision of Chandrakant N. Patel v/s State of Gujarat and others [ 1994[1] GLR 761 ]. He also pressed into service the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9005/98 dated 4/08/1999 in the case of Shobhaben wife of Chandrakant Chhara v/s Commissioner of Police and also the decision in the case of Relia Dhanjibhai Khimjibhai Koli v/s Rajkumar in Special Civil Application No. 9053/98 dated 1 4/06/1999, wherein these aspects have been considered by this Court. He therefore submitted that the petition may be allowed.

( 6 ) MR. Joshi, learned AGP, has opposed this petition. He submitted that the detaining authority has categorically recorded subjective satisfaction. That subjective satisfaction is also explained in the affidavit in reply filed by the detaining authority wherein the detaining authority states that he had carefully scrutinized, examined and considered all the materials and had also personally verified the veracity, genuineness and correctness of the statements of the witnesses and the incidents narrated in the registered offences. Mr. Joshi therefore urged that the petition may be dismissed.

( 7 ) HAVING regard to the rival contentions, it may be noted that the detaining authority, in the grounds of detention, has stated that he has found the apprehension of the witnesses to be genuine and correct and therefore, their identity is not disclosed by virtue of exercise of powers u/s 9[2] of the PASA Act.

( 8 ) IN the affidavit in reply, the detaining authority has stated as under :-"i have carefully scrutinized, examined and considered all those materials and also