JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“(A) Your Lordships be pleased to kindly admit and allow this petition.

(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directions or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention Dtd. 07/10/2023, passed by the respondent no.1 at Annexure “A” herein, and further your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondent authority to release the petitioner forthwith from detention;

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition your Lordships be pleased to release the petitioner on parole.

(D) Your Lordships be pleased to dispense with the filing of the petitioner’s affidavit as he is in jail;”

2. Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 07.10.2023, where the Detaining Authority has relied upon five offences registered with Bharuch (Rural), Bharuch City and Dahej Police Station respectively under the provisions of the Prohibition Act and treated the petitioner to be “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner at the outset has challenged the order of detention on the ground of delay in passing the order of detention. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 12-07-2023 and the detention order is passed after delay of three months on 07-10-2023.

3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Detaining Authority has not referred to as to how the activity of the petitioner is prejudicial to the public health, thereby disturbing the public order. In absence of subjective satisfaction in this regard, the Detaining Authority ought not to have invoked the detention law.

3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner though has been enlarged on regular bail, it was open for the Detaining Authority to resort to lessor drastic remedy.

4. Learned AGP for the respondent State has objected to the grant of petition and has submitted that the petitioner is dealing with prohibited liquor and therefore, his activities is potential to affect the public health. It is submitted that the Detaining Authority at the previous occasion, had also resorted to other remedies to curtail anti-social activities of the petitioner and reference is made to the order of externment in the year 2022.

4.1 Learned AGP has submitted that despite such action taken against the petitioner, the petitioner is continuing to indulge in such activities.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused only on the basis of investigation and the statement of co-accused. However, there is no direct evidence against the petitioner.

6. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that the order of detention dated 07.10.2023 indicates that the Detaining Authority has relied upon five offences registered under the provisions of the Prohibition Act, the details of which are as under:

6.1 The Court has taken into consi