IMPORTANT POINT
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order' are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

(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 and order quashing and setting aside the impugned order of detention dtd 04.10.2023, 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 detainee forthwith from detention;

(C) XXXX

(D) XXXX

(E) XXXX

2. The challenge is to the impugned order of detention dated 04.10.2023 where detaining authority- Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City has detained the petitioner as a dangerous person relying upon two offences registered with Amraiwadi Police Station.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that the offences relied upon by the detaining authority are arising out of private dispute, and therefore, there is no element of breach of public order.

4. Learned advocate has submitted that the detaining authority has referred to and relied upon the previous orders of detention in the year 2016, 2017 and 2022, however, the detaining authority has not referred to the subsequent development, wherein all the aforesaid detention orders have been quashed and set aside by this court. Hence, the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated as there is no application of mind to the subsequent development to the previous detention.

5. Learned A.G.P. has objected to the grant of petition by submitting that the petitioner is shown an active participant in the two offences relied upon by the detaining authority, and therefore, the offence under Chapter XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code, the act of the petitioner would clearly fall within definition of dangerous person hence, the detention order is justified.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner was previously also detained for his antisocial activity wherein this court had shown indulgence while quashing and setting aside the detention order but still the petitioner has continued to indulge in the similar antisocial activities, and therefore, detention order is justified.

7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, the petitioner has been detained as a dangerous person by order of detention dated 04.10.2023 by detaining authority namely the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City.

8. From the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has relied upon the two offences registered with Amraiwadi Police Station, details of which in tabular manner are as under:

9. The chronology of the aforesaid two offences would indicate that the petitioner was arrested on 20.09.2023 in connection with the second offence in the aforesaid table, which was registered on 25.06.2023 and the petitioner was on the very next day released on regular bail on 21.09.2023.

9.1 The petitioner thereafter on 21.09.2023 was arrested in connection with the first offence of the table, which was registered on 13.06.2023 and the petitioner was released on bail on 22.09.2023.

9.2 The petitioner was, therefore, released on the very next day of his arrest by the court of competent jurisdiction, despite this, the sponsoring authority has not thought it fit