JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIP may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction releasing the present petitioner from illegal detention under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 pursuant to order dated 22.09.2023 passed by respondent No.2 (at ANNEXURE-A hereto.”

2. The challenge is to the order of detention dated 22.09.2023 the detaining authority namely Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedabad, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “dangerous person” based on two offences registered against him.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on two grounds firstly, that the offenses in which the petitioner has been involved are arising out of private dispute and has no connection with disturbance in public order. Secondly, learned advocate has argued that the first offense was registered in December 2022, whereas the second offense was registered in August 2023 and therefore, there was a time gap of almost eight months and therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated to be a habitual offender to attract the definition of a dangerous person.

4. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader by objecting the petition submitted that as the petitioner has been involved in two IPC offenses falling within the Chapter of 16 and 17 of IPC, and therefore, it would fall within the definition of a dangerous person as contemplated under the PASA.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner has been detained by the impugned order of detention dated 22.09.2023 passed by the detaining authority-Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City. While passing the aforesaid order, the detaining authority has relied upon two offense, registered with Ranip and Ghatlodiya Police Station respectively. The details of which are in tabular form as under:-

6. The Court finds that the nature of offense for which the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in the offense registered at Ranip Police Station where the petitioner has not been named as an accused however, during the course of investigating, the name of the petitioner was revealed and therefore, arraigned as an accused. However, no act has been attributed to the petitioner. Not only that, it appears to be the FIR is Regitered on account of dispute between co-accused and the complainant pertaining to the handing over of certain revenue documents. In the opinion of the Court, the FIR therefore, registered was on account of an incident at the root of private dispute and would therefore, have no bearing on the prevailing public order or disturbing the even tempo of life. Therefore, as is held by the Apex Court in case of Pushker Mukherjee v/s. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 852], where the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' has been clearly laid down. The Court observed as follows :

“Does the expression "public order" take in every kind of infraction of order or only some categories thereof ? It is manifest that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder. When two people quarrel and fight and assault each other inside a house or in a street, it may be said that there is disorder but not public disorder. Such cases are dealt with under th