The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and cogent material to support a preventive detention order and the need for justifiable subjective satisfaction on objective material.

S.G.SHAH, J.

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.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has invited my attention to the order of detention dated 13.5.2014 by which detenu was arrested and sent to Rajkot Central Jail, Rajkot as well as to the grounds supplied by the detaining authority.

3. Learned Advocate has further submitted that in the order of detention, it is stated that the detenu is carrying on antisocial activities and on the basis of solitary offence of registered against the detenu vide II CR No.3078/2014, he has been termed as 'Immoral Traffic Offender' within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the P.A.S.A. Act. It is also stated in the impugned order that as the said activities of the detenu are dangerous and affecting maintenance of 'public order' and 'public health', the order of detention has been passed against him.

Section 2(g) of the Act defines the term ‘Immoral Traffic Offender’ as under:

“2(g). “Immoral Traffic Offender” means a person who habitually commits or abets the commission of any offence under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (104 of 1956).”

4. He has further submitted that on the basis of criminal case registered against the detenu, he cannot be termed as an 'Immoral Traffic Offender'. In support of his case he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court passed in the case of “Sohanlal Surajram Visnoi Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.” reported in 2004(2)GLR 1051 wherein it was held as under:

“It may be noted that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that no preventive detention order can be recorded in a solitary incident or instance or offence cannot be accepted in to. The detaining authority can pass the order of detention even on the basis of a solitary incident or instance, provided there is justifiable subjective satisfaction on objective material and consideration that such incident or offence is likely to create disturbance of “Public Order”. Emphasis is laid on “Public Order” and not on “Law and Order” which belongs to the realm of general law. After having taken into account the statutory definitions of the persons branded as “bootlegger” or “dangerous person” under the P.A.S.A. Act, and detailed factual matrix of each case, the solitary incident or instance in question in these petitions has not been shown or spelt out from the record as affecting the “Public Order” or likely to create public disturbance or prejudicial or adverse to the maintenance of “Public Order”, and therefore, the continued detention of the detenu in each case has not been shown to be justifiable, ...”

Hence, he has submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. On the contrary, learned A.G.P. for respondent detaining Authority has supported the order of detention as well as grounds stated therein and has contended that the Authority has passed the impugned order after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, and hence, no case is made out calling for interference of this Court.

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 that the person concerned is likely to indulge again in the same kind of notorious activities. Whereas, normal laws are primarily concerned with the act of commission of the offence, the detention laws are concerned with character of the person who has committed or is likely to commit an offence. The detaining authority has, therefore, to be satisfied th