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 issue writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order of detention dated 30/09/2023 passed by the detaining authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 as being illegal, invalid, null, and void arbitrary, suffers from total non-application of mind and violation of Article 14, 21 and 22 of the constitution of India.”

1.1 Essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 30.09.2023 passed by the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad, respondent No. 2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “bootlegger” based on two offenses registered against him.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that the order of detention has been passed on the very next day of the petitioner being released on regular bail and therefore, the detaining authority did not have sufficient time to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. Learned advocate has challenged the order also on the ground that though the detaining authority has referred to adversely affecting the public health however, alongwith the grounds of detention, there is no material to place substantiate the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority. According to the petitioner, to arrive at conclusion that the sale of prohibited liquor by the petitioner has affected adversely the public health, then in that case, there is no report of a FSL or any other data in the form of statement or otherwise to indicate that how the consumption of liquor has adversely affected the public health and thereby disturbing the public order.

2.1 Learned advocate has submitted that the petitioner has relied upon the decision in case of Pesala Nookaraju vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2023) 14 SCC 641. Learned advocate has also argued that in each of the cases relied upon by the detaining authority, the petitioner has been enlarged on regular bail, particularly, attention is drawn to the offense registered at Naroda police station, where the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail on 29.09.2023 and the detention order is passed immediately on 30.09.2023.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that as the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in two offenses under the Prohibition Act, the detaining authority was justified in considering the petitioner as a bootlegger under Section 2(b) of the Act and therefore, passed an order of detention. He has drawn attention to the grounds of detention submitting that the earlier also, the petitioner has been detained under the PASA.

4. In rejoinder, learned advocate has submitted that though the detaining authority has made reference to the earlier order of detention, but the detaining authority has not placed anything on record in this regard, particularly the subsequent development, wherein it is indicated that the order of detention has been revoked by the competent authority.

5. Heard advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The petitioner has been detained as a bootlegger by an order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedabad. While passing the order of detention, in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has relied upon two offenses, details of which in tabular form are as under: