R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 20569 of 2015 aggrieved by CAV judgment dated 11.01.2016, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, wherein the appellant had challenged the order of detention dated 21.11.2015 bearing No. PCB/DTN/PASA/915/2015 passed by Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, in exercise of powers under section 3(2) of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 ('PASA Act' for brevity).

2. In the grounds of detention it is stated that the appellant-petitioner is accused in Crime Register No. I-19 of 2015 registered on 04.03.2015 on the file of Gayakwad Haweli Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 436, 427and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135(1) of the Gujarat Police Act. It is also stated that the appellant-petitioner is accused in Crime Register No. I-3038 of 2015 registered on 19.04.2015 on the file of DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act. It is also stated that the appellant-petitioner is accused in Crime Register No. 3061 of 2015 registered on 01.06.2015 with DCB Police Station for the offences punishable under section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act.

3. Referring to the above said crimes, alleging that the appellant-petitioner falls within the definition of 'dangerous person' within the meaning of section 2(c) of PASA Act, and to prevent the anti-social activities of the petitioner which will likely to affect maintenance of public order, the order of detention is passed. Such order of detention is challenged on various grounds. Firstly, it is the case of the petitioner that he cannot be termed as a 'dangerous person', and in any event having regard to the crimes registered against the appellant-petitioner, it cannot be said that such activities alleged against the appellant-petitioner affect maintenance of public order, within the meaning of section 3of PASA Act. It is pleaded that the allegations made against the appellant-petitioner are false and there is no contemporary material available with the detaining authority to indicate that public order is disturbed in any manner, therefore, the detaining authority has erred in passing the order of detention. It is also the case of the appellant-petitioner that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention without application of mind, by considering the irrelevant material, and alleging the facts which are not proved as per the F.I.Rs. in the aforesaid cases, such order of detention is challenged. It is also pleaded that having regard to the sequence of events in which allegations are made against the appellant-petitioner by registering various crimes, the appellant-petitioner cannot be termed as a 'habitual offender' in view of the time lag between last crime registered and order of detention passed. In absence of any proximity and continuity of allegations, it cannot be said that the appellant-petitioner is a habitual offender. Further it is specifically pleaded that though tamancha and live cartridges were not seized from the appellant-petitioner in Crime Register No. 3038 of 2015, which was registered on 19.04.2015 on the file of DCB Police Station and the detaining authority by recording finding that tamancha and live cartridges were seized from the petitioner, such order of detention was passed with reference to the aforesaid allegations. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that it is the case of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the order by considering the irrelevant material. Further, it is the case of the appellant-petitioner that having regard to the allegations made in the Crime Register which are yet to be tried, the appellant-petitioner cannot be termed as 'dangerous person'. It is also contended that in any event, having regard to the allegations made, it c