The live link between offences is essential for justifying a detention order, and the contravention of any law must affect the community or the public at large to be considered as affecting public order. The court also emphasized that preventive detention may not be the proper remedy if other legal remedies are available.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

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

“(a) Your Lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions of this Hon’ble High Court, for quashing and setting aside the Detention Order No.PCB/DTN/PASA/458/2023 dated 31.08.2023 at Annexure-A to the petition placing the petitioner under preventive detention, in purported exercise of their powers under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti- Social Activities Act, 1985, as being illegal, null and void and further be pleased to release the petitioner forthwith;

(b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to dispense with filing of affidavit in support of this petition as the facts are taken from records and also petitioner is in jail undergoing detention order in question.

(c) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to release the petitioner from her detention, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;

(d) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.”

2. The challenge is to the order of detention dated 31.08.2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority viz. the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, 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 petitioner – detenue as defined under section 2(b) of the Act on the basis of two offences registered with Sardarnagar Police Station under the provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

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 that two offences registered against the petitioner are parted by 9 months and therefore, there is no live link between the two offences as snapped so as to treat the petitioner as continuously indulging in the offences of prohibition to justify the order of detention.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction in both the offences. However, the detaining authority has not taken into consideration lesser drastic remedy available of cancellation of bail and has proceeded to detain the petitioner as bootlegger.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that offences registered against the petitioner would not affect the public order as there is no documentary evidence on record to indicate that the consumption of prohibited liquor would cause damage to the public health and consequently disturb the public order.

6. Learned AGP has objected to grant of petition by submitting that two offences are sufficient to treat the petitioner as active bootlegger and therefore, the order of detention is justified. Over and above aforesaid, on previous four occasions also, the petitioner has been detained under the provisions of PASA, still the petitioner is continued to indulge in similar activity and therefore, the detaining authority had no other option but to pass the impugned order of detention.

7. Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that two offences are sufficient enough to treat the petitioner as active bootlegger and therefore, the order of detention is just and proper. He also submitted that as sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenue indicate that detenue is in habit of indulging into the activity as defined under section 2(b) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court.

8. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering th