( 1 ) IN this group of seven petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging interalia the detention orders passed by the respective detaining authority in exercise of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act") on various and divergent grounds, a common ground of challenge emerging in all the questioned detentions in this group is as to whether the impugned action of detention made on the basis of a solitary incident or offence, in the factual profile of each case, can be upheld by this Court, and whether the same would justify the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in reaching to the conclusion that the said solitary incident in each case was sufficient enough to detain the detenu with a view to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of "public order"?

( 2 ) SINCE upon the factual profile viewed in the light of legal settings, the questioned detention orders in this group of seven petitions have been passed on the subjective satisfaction allegedly made on the objective facts which are factually common, and since in all these cases, the detention orders are passed only on the basis of a solitary offence registered against the detenus, upon request, and upon consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) THE PASA Act is aimed at providing for preventive detention of bootleggers, dangerous persons, drug offenders, immoral traffic offenders and property grabbers from preventing their anti-social and dangerous activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Section 2 (b) of the PASA Act defines who is a "bootlegger" whereas Section 2 (c) of the said Act provides statutory definition of a "dangerous person". The detaining authority is empowered under Section 3 (2) of the PASA Act to pass detention order on reaching the subjective satisfaction that it is necessary, with respect to the detenu, to detain such person, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is needless to reiterate that emphasis is laid on "public order" and not on "law and order", which can be curbed or controlled under the general law. Preventive detention has a purpose and object, namely, that any defined activity or action under the detention law is sought to be prevented from its reoccurrence. It is therefore clear that it is preventive and not punitive detention. The preventive detention has also historical perspective and with constitutional safeguards, the detaining authority, on reaching the subjective satisfaction upon evaluation of the objective facts, is empowered to pass detention order so as to prevent occurrence of any activity or action statutorily provided and defined under the preventive detention law.

( 4 ) ARTICLE 22 (3) of the Constitution of India expressly provides that the safeguards contained in Article 22 (1) and 22 (2) of the Constitution are not to apply to preventive detention. Article 22 (4) of the Constitution provides and opens with double negative, put in positive form, and in its real substance, means that a law which provides for preventive detention for a period longer than three months, shall contain all the provisions prescribed in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution prescribes that when any person under a preventive detention law is detained, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person, the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him with the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution is of general importance and operation in respect of every detention order made under any preventive detention law.

( 5 ) IN this group of petitions, all the