A distinction exists between 'law and order' and 'public order'; the registration of a single criminal case is generally insufficient to establish that a person's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order for the purpose of preventive detention.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent-State. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.

1. The petitioner herein came to be preventively detained vide the detention order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the respondent no.1 – Director General of Police, C.I.D. Crime & Railways, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit TrafÏc in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PIT- NDPS Act ).

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the aforesaid order.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. B.H. Solanki and Mr. Jay Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

4. Learned advocate for the detenue submits that the grounds of detention has no nexus to the “public order”, but is a purely a matter of law and order, as registration of the offence cannot be said to have either affected adversely or likely to affect adverse the maintenance of public order as contemplated under the explanation sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, 1988 and therefore, where the offences alleged to have been committed by the detenue have no bearing on the question of maintenance of public order and his activities could be said to be a prejudicial only to the maintenance of law and order and not prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the application contended that, the detenue is habitual offender and his activities affected at the society at large. In such set of circumstances, the Detaining Authority, considering the antecedents and past activities of the detenue, has passed the impugned order with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Jamnagar.

6. Having considered the facts as well as the submissions made by the respective parties, the issue arise as to whether the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority in exercise of his powers under the provisions of the Act of 1988 is sustainable in law?

7. The order impugned was executed upon the applicant and presently he is in Jail. In the grounds of detention, a reference of one criminal case registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of NDPS Act dated 02.10.2024 registered with Jodiya Police Station, Jamnagar was made and further it is alleged that, the activities of the detenue affects adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order as explained under the provisions of Act of 1988.

8. After careful consideration of the material, we are of the considered view that on the basis of one criminal case, the authority has wrongly arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenue could be termed to be acting in a manner ‘prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’. In our opinion, the said offence does not have any bearing on the maintenance of public order. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Piyush Kantilal Mehta Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad , 1989 Supp (1) SCC 322, wherein, the detention order was made on the basis of the registration of the two prohibition offences. The Apex Court after referring the case of Pushkar Mukherjee Vs. State of Bengal , 1969 (1) SCC 10 held and observed that mere disturbance of law and order leading to detention order is thus not necessarily sufÏcient for action under preven