JUDGMENT :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

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

“(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Detention Order dated 05/10/2023 bearing No.DCB /MGAG /PASA 30/ 2023 at Annexure-”A” to the petition placing the Petitioner under preventive detention in purported exercise of the powers under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 as being illegal, arbitrary, null and void and further be pleased to direct the respondents to release the Petitioner forthwith.”

2. Thus, essentially, the challenge is to the order of detention dated 05.10.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Valsad, respondent No.2 herein, by which the petitioner has been detained as a “bootlegger” as defined under section 2(b) of the Act based on seven offences registered against him, details of which are as under:-

3. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the order of detention impugned in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside as of registration of the offences under Sections of the Prohibition Act by itself cannot bring the case of the detenue within the purview of definition under section 2(b) of the Act. Further, learned advocate for the detenue submits that illegal activity likely to be carried out or alleged to have been carried out, as alleged, cannot have any nexus or bearing with the maintenance of public order and at the most, it can be said to be breach of law and order. Further, except statement of witnesses, registration of above FIR/s and Panchnama drawn in pursuance of the investigation, no other relevant and cogent material is on record connecting alleged anti-social activity of the detenue with breach of public order. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that it is not possible to hold on the basis of the facts of the present case that activity of the detenue with respect to the criminal cases had affected even tempo of the society causing threat to the very existence of normal and routine life of people at large or that on the basis of criminal cases, the detenue had put the entire social apparatus in disorder.

4. Learned AGP for the respondent State supported the detention order passed by the authority and submitted that sufficient material and evidence was found during the course of investigation, which was also supplied to the detenue indicate that detenue is in habit of indulging into the activity as defined under section 2(b) of the Act and considering the facts of the case, the detaining authority has rightly passed the order of detention and detention order deserves to be upheld by this Court. The State has chosen not to file counter affidavit/reply so as to justify the action invo