etition Criminal No 485 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
TU Mehta and SC Patel for the Petitioner
GA Shah Mrs H Wahi and MN Shroff for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BC RAY J
The petitioner has questioned in this writ petition the legality and validity of the impugned order of detention made on October 12 1988 by the respondent No 1 under sub
section 1 of sec
3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad city
The petitioner was detained by the respondents and was served with the grounds of detention alongwith the documents mentioned therein on the very day of detention that is October 12 1988
The grounds of detention were in Gujarati
The petitioner in the writ petition has stated that he was previously detained under the SR NoPCB DTNPASA3785 on May 23 1985 and was released on June 28 1985
The petitioner had been detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act 1985 hereinafter referred to in short as PASA Act 
The said order was challenged by writ petition before the Guja rat High Court which quashed the same and the petitioner was released from detention
The main thrust of challenge to the impugned order of detention is that the detaining authority in addition to new facts has taken into consideration the earlier two detention orders as well as the grounds of detention referred to therein presumably for the purpose of arriving at his subjective satisfaction that inspire of the earlier detention order which was of course quashed and set aside the detenu has been persistently continuing his anti social activities and as such the order of detention was clamped
This has vitiated the impugned order of detention
Other challenges such as non disclosure of names and ad dresses of four witnesses whose statements have been men tioned with the grounds of detention and have been served alongwith the grounds as well as the vagueness of the state ments made in the grounds about the alleged criminal activi ties of the detenu has rendered the order illegal and bad as the petitioner was prevented from making an effective repre sentation against the same
586 The relevant portion of the grounds are extracted hereunder You are indulged into anti social activities by selling stocking and keeping in possession of yourself or through other person the Eng lish and Deshi liquor of Dariapur area in this connection the offences under Bombay Prohibi tion Act
1949 are registered against you wherein you were arrested the details of which is as under SNo
Police Office Section Stock Disposal Station Regis Seized ter No Dariapur 10688 Prohibition 7575 ml
under Act sections 663 English investi 65A E 68 5 Lt Deshi gation 81 8513 Liquor
Rs 1971
Dariapur 12088 Prohibition 8640 mi
under Act secs
English investi 663 65A liquor
gation
E 68 81 8513
Rs 940
13788 Prohibition 3 105 mi
 Act secs
English 66B 65E liquor
81 Rs 940
 14588  166 bottles  English liquor
Rs 1300
 14688 Prohibition 82 Lt
 Act section 66B English 65E liquor
Rs800
Accordingly upon careful perusal of the complaint and papers enclosed with the propos al it appears that you are a Prohibition Bootlegger and doing illegal activity of selling English and Deshi liquor
You and your companions are beating and showing deadly weapons like Rampuri knife to 587 the innocent persons passing through the said locality on the promise of being Batmidar  of police
And you are beating the person who oppose your activity of liquor you are com pelling to bring stock of liquor to the Motor Vehicles like Auto Rickshaw and upon denial to do so you threat to kill him by Rampuri knife your customers who are drunken are teasing to the women passing from there and if any one oppose or request not to do so your threats showing Rampuri knife to kill to the innocent persons are and an atmosphere of danger and violence is spread over because of your such offensive activities and as you are doing acts which are obstructive in maintaining public administration
You are an obstruct in main taining public administration
You are an obstruct in maintaining public administration in view of the fact and result of your above stated anti social activ ities and fact of such instances are also stated by the peace loving people doing busi ness in the above area copies of their state ments are given to you herewith
As your offensive activities are ob structive in public administration you were detained under NASA 1980 by this office order No PCBDTNNSA3785 date 23585 and were released from detention on 28685
And your offensive activities are ob structive to the maintenance to public admin istration that you were detained under PASA Act 1985 by this office order No PCBDTNPASA3686 dt
26986 as you have filed writ petition in the Honourable Gujarat High Court against this order the Honourable High Court has on 25687 passed an order to release you from detention
Accordingly looking to the overall fact I am satisfied that you are prohibited bootlegger and known a headstrong and angry person and an atmosphere of fear and violence is spread over in residents of the said local ity because of your above anti social activi ties such activities cannot be refrained by taking steps under the common law
 The affidavit of reply affirmed by Mr SN Sinha Commis sioner 588 of Police Ahmedabad city has been filed on December 7 1988
In paragraph 4 it has been stated that in fact the petitioner belongs to the gang of Abdul Latif and has not at all been falsely prosecuted in any case it has also been submitted that the petitioner was not good and was involved in activities which affect the society adversely
In para graph 9 of the said affidavit it has been denied that the grounds are not relevant for the purpose and the present detention order has been passed totally on a different and fresh grounds
It has also been submitted therein that it is absolutely wrong to say that the earlier two orders passed against the petitioner were illegal in any manner
Out of the two detention orders order of 1985 was passed under the in view of the fact of public riots in the Ahmedabad city and order of 1986 was passed on the ground of the petitioner being bootlegger and dangerous person on account of pendency of certain prosecution and both of which were passed by his predecessor and therefore the said orders have nothing to do with the present orders
It has been further submitted that it is absolutely wrong to say that the sponsoring authority has not submitted the earlier order of release of the petitioner by the Board and the Gujarat High Court
The grounds of detention make it abundantly clear that this fact was clearly considered and thereafter the detention order has been passed and there fore there is no substance in the contention that the decision of detention would have been different if the earlier orders of release would have been placed before him
The most important question that posed itself for con sideration in this case is whether the detaining authority while considering the fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of detention has taken into consideration the earlier two detention orders one of 1985 under the and the other of 1986 under the PASA Act in forming his subjective satisfaction that the detenu inspite of the passing of the earlier two detention orders has been per sistingly indulging in his anti social activities and as such in preventing such criminal activities which posed a threat to the maintenance of public order the impugned order of detention has been made by him
It is now well settled by the decision of this court while considering the scope of section 15 of PASA Act that the modification and revocation of detention order by the State Government shall not bar making of another detention order on fresh facts when the period of detention has come to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention
Reference may be made in this connection to the decision of this court in Abdul Latif Abdul Waheb Sheikh vs
BK Jha and Anr 1987 589 2 SCC 22 and in Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar vs Shri NL Kalna  Ors JT 1989 1 SC 572 it is therefore clear that an order of detention cannot be made after considering the previous grounds of detention when the same had been quashed by the court and if such previous grounds of detention are taken into consideration while forming the subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority in making a detention order the order of detention will be vitiated
It is of no consequence if the further fresh facts disclosed in the grounds of the impugned detention order have been considered
In the present case admittedly in the grounds of deten tion specific reference has been made to the earlier two orders of detention made in 1985 and 1986 against the peti tioner
It is also evident that in the schedule of documents annexed to the grounds of detention not only the copies of the order of detention but also of the grounds of detention in the earlier detention cases have been given to the peti tioner
It also appears from the statements made in the grounds of detention that the detaining authority took into consideration the previous grounds of detention as well as the orders made therein even though the same were nullified by the High Court as well as by the Advisory Body presuma bly for the purpose of showing that the detenu inspire of those earlier orders of detention was continuing his boot legging activities
It has been tried to be contended on behalf of the detaining authority that though the earlier two detention orders have been mentioned in the grounds of detention and the copy of the orders passed in the previous detention cases as well as the grounds of detention were supplied to the detenu yet these were not at all considered by him in forming subjective satisfaction for clamping the order of detention
This submission cannot be sustained in view of the statements made in the grounds of detention
The other grounds regarding the vagueness of the aver ments made in the grounds about the petitioner indulging in criminal activities apart from the five criminal cases lodged under the Prohibition Act and mentioned in the ground of detention do not satisfy the requirements envisaged in section 31 of the PASA Act in as much as the said five specific criminal cases have no connection with the maintenance of public order
The aforesaid criminal activity does not appear to have disturbed the even tempo of life of the people of Ahmedabad City or of the particular locality
Further more the averments have been made in the grounds are Accordingly upon careful perusal of com plaint and 590 papers enclosed with the proposal it appears that you are a prohibition bootlegger doing illegal activity of selling English and Deshi liquor
You and your companion are bearing and showing deadly weapons like Ram puri knife to the innocent persons passing through the said locality on the promise of beating Batmider  of police
And you are beating innocent persons who oppose your activity of liquor etc
 These statements are vague and without any particulars as to what place or when and to whom the detenu threatened with Rampuff knife and whom he has alleged to have beaten
These vague averments made in the grounds of detention hereinbe fore are bad in as much as the detenu could not make an effective representation against the impugned order of detention
As such the detention order is illegal and bad
It is pertinent to refer to the decision of this court in the case of Writ Petition Crl No 151989 judgment of which has been pronounced today on this score
It is no necessary to consider and decide other questions raised in this writ petition
For the reasons aforesaid we allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of detention made against the petitioner
We direct the respondents to set free the petitioner forthwith
GN Petition allowed


Summary:
The prosecution case was that a mob Of 40 50 persons including the appellant formed an unlawful assembly with the common objects of dismantling the hut of R of setting fire to it and committing assault if resisted they assaulted some persons and the appellant ordered one Budi to set fire to the hut and Budi set fire to it with the result that it was burnt down Twenty two persons including the appellant and Budi were sent up for trial
The Sessions judge found that all of them formed an unlawful assembly with the common objects of dismantling the hut and committing assault on remonstrance but that there was no common object to set fire to the hut and the act of incendiarism was an isolated act of some members of the unlawful assembly
He found that the appellant had given the order to Budi to set fire to the hut and Budi had set fire to it in consequence of the abetment
The Sessions judge convicted the accused persons under sections 147 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code
Budi was further convicted under section 436 and the appellant under section 436 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code
On appeal the High Court set aside the conviction of Budi under section 436 holding it not proved that he had set fire to the hut
The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under section 436 read with section cog holding that he had given the order to set fire to the hut and that it was actually set on fire by one of the members of the unlawful assembly
The appellant challenged his conviction under section 436 read with section 109 on the ground that it was not established that the person who set fire to the hut had done so in consequence of the order of the appellant Held that the appellant was rightly convicted under section 436 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code
On the findings given in the case it must be held that the person who set fire to the hut was one of the members of the unlawful assembly and that he did so in consequence of the order of the appellant
Raja Khan vs Emperor AIR 1920 Cal 834 and Umadasi Dasi vs Emperor Cal 112 referred to