The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of FIRs by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order, and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be legal and valid. Additionally, any delay in passing the order of detention must be satisfactorily explained.

JUDGMENT :

(A.Y. Kogje, J.)

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

“b) BE PLEASED to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order of dated 4/9/2023, at Annexure-’A’ passed by office of the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad, the respondent no.2 (herein after referred as the detaining authority) by order No-PCB/DTN/PASA/ 472/2023, Dated, 4/9/2023, passed by office of the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad i.e. the Respondent No.2, herein and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the petitioner from detention forthwith and set at free, in the interest of justice.”

2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” based on nine 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 theft of vehicles of private 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.

3.2 It is submitt