1. Perused the petition, materials supplied to the detenu, detention order and heard learned counsel for the parties.

1.1 The respondent-State has not filed affidavit-in-reply. Therefore, averments and contentions raised in the petition remains unchallenged and un-controverted.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of detention dated 9.3.2014 passed by the respondent authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short the Act) by detaining the detenue as a "dangerous person" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.

2. Learned advocate for the detenu submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside and the ground that four offences registered against the detenu before the concerned police station vide IC. R. Nos. 74 of 2013, 170 of 2013, 277 of 2013 and 131 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 454, 380 etc. of I.P.C. respectively, by itself cannot bring the case of the detenu within the purview of definition "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Act. Learned advocate for the detenu further submits that illegal activity carried out as alleged cannot have any nexus or bearing with maintenance of public order and at the most it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except registration of FIRs, no other relevant or cogent material is available on record connecting the alleged antisocial activities of the detenu with breach of the public order.

3. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the term "dangerous person" as under:

"2(c). Dangerous person means a person, who either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any of the offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (GLV of 1860) or any of the offences punishable under Chapter V of the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959)."

4. Learned advocate for the detenu, placing reliance on the decisions reported in the cases of Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad (Vekaria) vs. State of Gujarat, 2000 (3) GLR 2696; Ashokbhai Jivraj alias Jivabhai Solanki vs. Police Commissioner, Surat, 2000 (1) GLH 393 and Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh vs. M.M. Mehta, (1995) 3 SCC 237, submitted that the case on hand is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions. Learned counsel for the detenu further submits that it is not possible to hold in the facts of the present case that the activities of the detenu with reference to the criminal case/s had affected even tempo of the society, posing a threat to the very existence of the normal and routine life of the people at large or that on the basis of the criminal case/s, the detenu had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by the rule of law by disturbing public order.

5. Learned AGP for the respondent-State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that the detenu is a "dangerous person" and sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenu, indicating that the detenu is in habit of indulging into activities as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and the detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court. For such submission, the learned A.G.P. took me through the grounds upon which the detaining authority satisfied to detain the petitioner.

6. The order of detention is passed on the basis of what has come to be known as the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority such subjective satisfaction has to be arrived at on two points. Firstly, on the veracity of facts imputed to the person to be detained and secondly, on the prognostication of the detaining authority th