The need for a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, and the requirement for convincing impact on public order to justify preventive detention.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“(A) To issue appropriate writ and/or direction quashing and setting aside the order of detention, order no. DM/1/PASA/CASE/66/2023 Passed by District Magistrate, Bhavnagar on 05.09.2023 at Annexure-A.”

2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 05.09.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, respondent No. 1 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “bootlegger” based on solitary offence registered against him, the 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 solitary offence under the Prohibition Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(b) 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. 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.

3.1 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 solitary criminal case had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large.

4. Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that 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.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the order of detention came to be passed on 05.09.2023. The State could have resorted to ordinary law by filing cancellation of bail application and that would have been sufficient to prevent the petitioner from indulging in further offence, particularly when the petitioner has been granted bail in connection with the offence on which the detaining authority has relied upon to arrive at a subjective satisfaction.

6. The order of detention states that the activity of the petitioner is danger to public health. However, the Court finds that there is no FLS report on record so as to establish factum of prohibited liquor affecting public health, thereby causing disturbance in public order.

7. The subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority cannot be said to be legal, valid and in accordance with law, inasmuch as the offences alleged in the FIR cannot have any bearing on the public order as required under the Act and other relevant penal laws are sufficient enough to take care of the situation and that the allegations as have been levelled against the detenue cannot be said to be germane for the purpose of bringing the detenue within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act. Unless and until, the material is there to make out a case that the p