The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on proper consideration and that ordinary law is sufficient to prevent a person from further offences, emphasizing the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order'.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for following relief:-

“A) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order No.PCB /PASA/DTN/734/2023 dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City at Annex- A;”

2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Surat, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” based on two offences registered against him, details of which are as under:-

3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground of registration of the offences under the Indian Penal Code by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(c) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder, making it difficult for whole system to exist as a system governed by rule of law by disturbing public order.

3.1 It is submitted that the offences are pertaining bodily injuries against individuals and will therefore not amounting to breach of public order as no where in the grounds of detention, it is coming out that the sporadic act of the petitioner has caused disturbance to public order. In any case, option was always available to the detaining authority to resort to cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

4. As against this, learned AGP submitted that the detaining authority had sufficient material on the record to pass the order of detention. Not only that, there are other supporting evidences also which the detaining authority has taken into consideration like drawing of panchnama, which led to discovery of vehicle of which theft was committed. The two FIRs registered against the petitioner are under Chapter-16 and 17 of IPC, thereby attracting the ingredients of “dangerous person”.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is no live link between the two offences as the first offence was registered in January 2023 and the second was registered in August 2023. From perusal of FIRs, the disputes appear to be private in nature. Moreover, in the second offence, the petitioner was released on the same day. The detaining authority has therefore committed an error in considering two separate offences to treat the petitioner as “