( 1 ) BY way of this special civil application, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed against him by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad city on 23. 6. 2003 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under sec. 3 (1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the PASA Act" for short ). The petitioner was declared as "bootlegger" and he was actually detained in jail from 23. 6. 2003.

( 2 ) THE grounds served upon the petitioner and placed on record reveal that the detaining authority relied upon four cases registered against the petitioner under sec. 66 (1) (B), 65 (E) and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act on 23. 2. 2002, 13. 5. 2002, 3. 1. 2003 and 20. 6. 2003 whereby it is alleged that some quantity of country liquor was found in each occasion from the possession of the petitioner. In addition to this, the detaining authority placed reliance upon two statements recorded by the sponsoring authority in-camera on 21. 6. 2003 and verified by the detaining authority on 22. 6. 2003 revealing the incidents taken place on 18. 5. 2003 and 5. 6. 2003. From the above material, the petitioner was considered to be a bootlegger and his activities to be prejudicial to the maintenance of pubic order and hence, the order impugned in this petition came to be passed by the detaining authority.

( 3 ) MR Pandya for Ms. KU Mishra for the petitioner and ld. AGP Mr Chauhan for the respondents were heard at length. Affidavit in reply filed by the detaining authority and placed on record is also taken into consideration.

( 4 ) VARIOUS contention were raised on behalf of the petitioner and controverted by ld. AGP. From the rival contentions, it appears that the matter can be considered and disposed of on sole contention whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the activities of the detenu amounted to prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Ld. advocate for the petitioner vehemently contended that the cases registered against the petitioner are under Prohibition Act and it could hardly be said that those cases are the activities on the part of the petitioner so as to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In respect of two in-camera statements as recorded by sponsoring authority, it was contended that those are individual disputes and could have been taken care of by the ordinary law. It was also contended that the averments made in the statements are too general and vague as to reach to the subjective satisfaction that on account of allegations made in the in-camera statements, the public order was disturbed. It was contended therefore that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated and the order is required to be quashed. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Ashok Jivraj vs. Police Commissioner, Surat as reported in 2000 (1) GLH p. 393.

( 5 ) CONTROVERTING the contention on behalf of the petitioner, ld. AGP Mr. Chauhan draw the attention of the court towards the averments made in the statements particularly the phrases used in the in-camera statements that due to the activities of the petitioner, the crowd was gathered and disbursed due to fear and terror of the petitioner and his associates, the people in the locality , due to the fear and terror started running away, the traffic was disrupted, the shops were closed in the area and thus petitioner and his associates created terror and fear in the locality. According to the ld. AGP both the in-camera statements disclosed that the terror and fear was created by the petitioner in the locality, so the shops nearby were closed on account of threat given by the petitioner and tempo of life was adversely affected. According to the ld. AGP the public order was disturbed and the order impugned in this petition is not required to be quashed on that ground. Ld. AGP relied upon three decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of