JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“a) Allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order Kramank: DC/POL/PASA/DTN/SR No.11/2023 of detention at Annexure-’A’ dt. 30/09/2023 passed by the respondent no.2.”

1.1 Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 30.09.2023 passed by the detaining authority, the District Magistrate, Sabarkantha, Himatnagar respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “bootlegger” based on three offenses registered against him.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention primarily on the ground of delay. It is submitted that even after the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail on 12.07.2023, the order of detention is passed after delay of two months.

2.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has also argued that the detaining authority in the grounds of detention has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the sale of Indian made foreign liquor by the petitioner has resulted in addiction of the people as a result of which the public health has been affected. Learned advocate states that for such a subjective satisfaction, there is no material on record to arrive at a conclusion.

2.2 Learned advocate lastly submitted that though the petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid three offenses, he was enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction and thereafter, the detaining authority has not resorted to lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail before passing the order of detention.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that the detaining authority is justified to arrive at subjective satisfaction of petitioner being a bootlegger on the ground that the detention order is based on three FIRs registered under the provisions of Prohibition Act. Over and above, there are four other offenses also again under the Prohibition Act which are registered against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is indulging in such kind of antisocial activities.

4. Heard advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner has been detained on the basis of three offenses of prohibition as a bootlegger.

4.1 The detaining authority has in the grounds of detention relied upon three offenses, details of which in tabular form are as under:-

5. The record would indicate that in each of three offenses, the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail and lastly in connection with the offense being C.R.Nos.1120904923040/23, registered with Talod Police Station, the petitioner was enlarged by the order of JMFC, Talod dated 12.07.2023. It is thereafter, the detaining authority has passed an order of detention dated 30.09.2023. According to this Court, the detention order is passed belatedly as there is no explanation for delay of approximately two months in the order/grounds of detention nor there is any affidavit filed by the detaining authority to explain the delay.

6. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura, reported in AIR 2022 S.C. 4715, in the opinion of the Court the delay occurred in the facts of the present case is fatal to the order of detention. The Apex Court has obs