J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this writ-application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of his detention under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (Gujarat Act No. 16 of 1985) (for short, 'the P.A.S.A. Act') pursuant to the order dated 6th January, 2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Porbandar, in exercise of his powers under Sec. 3(1) of the P.A.S.A. Act. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner has been detained as a 'dangerous person'. He prays for a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, the learned Advocate while inviting my attention to the order dated 6th January, 2015 and the grounds stated therein, urged that the recording of the subjective satisfaction is necessary for the preventive detention. The detention, with a view to prevent a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, is a condition precedent for the exercise of power under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 3 of the said Act. He invited my attention to the order of detention and the grounds and urged that there is no subjective satisfaction recorded in the said order. He urged that from the grounds, it appears that the applicant was-ordered to be prevented/detained due to the alleged criminal behaviour of me applicant, and due to great fear in the mind of the people at large about their safety. He urged that even in the grounds of detention, there is no subjective satisfaction recorded that the petitioner being a dangerous person, his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. He pointed out that one solitary case registered on 4th September, 2014, at the Kamlabaug Police Station, vide C.R. No. 1-115 of 2014 of the offence punishable under Sees. 324, 323, 504 read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been taken into consideration. He invited my attention to the relevant part of the grounds of detention, wherein the Detaining Authority has relied upon the in-camera statements of witnesses A and B. He pointed out that the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority about the truthfulness of the in-camera statement has not been recorded. He has also alleged mala fides on the part of the authority by making averments in the memo of the petition that the detenu happens to be the son of late Santokben Jadeja. The late Santokben Jadeja was elected as an independent candidate in the year 1992 from the Kutiyana Constituency as the Member of me Gujarat Legislative Assembly. The elder brother of the detenu Mr. Kandhal Jadeja was also elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Kutiyana Constituency in the elections of the Gujarat Legislative Assembly, which were held in the year 2012. It is alleged that since the brother of the detenu is a Member of the Legislative Assembly affiliated with the National Congress Party and holds high political influence over the people of Kutiyana, the detenu has been made a victim of such political rivalry.

2. Mr. Mangukiya submits that under the provisions of the said Act, the State Government is required to confirm/approve the order of the preventive detention. He urged that the Authority is required to apply its mind to me order of detention. He submitted that the order of detention does not record any subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority in terms of Sec. 3 of the said Act, and it is a matter of common experience that the State Government also, without any application of mind, grants approval to the same.

3. Mr. Mangukiya submits that the law is well settled so far as the preventive detention is concerned. According to Mr. Mangukiya, the mere registration of cases under the Indian Penal Code by itself is not sufficient to label a person as a dangerous person. According to Mr. Mangukiya, the power of preventive detention is being completely misused by the Authority. He would urge that in such circumstances, his det