JUDGMENT
K.J. Vidya, J.
1. The petitioner-Avcharbhi Upasaria, who came to be detained on the ground of his alleged as a property-grabber, by this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has challenged the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 12-8-1990 under Section 31) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act,1985 (for short-PAPSA) passed by Mr. P.N. Roychowdhary, District Magistrate, Rajkot (for short-the detaining authority) inter alia praying for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus and for quashing and setting aside the detention order, setting him at liberty forthwith.
2. Miss D.R. Kachhavah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner though has raised several contentions in the petition, has mainly chosen to attack the impugned order of detention on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority stands vitiated as the activities Alleged against the detenu were disturbing the social order instead if public order Making good this submission, Miss Kachhavah has invited our attention to the concluding para 3 of the alleged grounds of detention, wherein it has been stated that since the petitioner as a ‘land-grabber’ has shattered the social order and thereby created an atmosphere of insecurity, it was necessary to detain him. Now it is not difficult to appreciate this point as no order of detention can ever be passed till the detaining authority arrives at the satisfaction of the alleged activities being prejudicial to the public order. It hardly, requires to be mentioned that there is a gulf of difference between ‘social order’ and ‘public order.’
3. As against the above, Mr. P.S. Chapaneri, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondents submitted that unquestionably the order of detention dated 12-8-1990 at Annexure ‘A’ has been passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of ‘public order’. In fact, the expression ‘public order’ has been specifically referred to in the said impugned detention order itself. Mr. Chapaneri, while substantiating this submission, read out the relevant portion of the detention order, which is as under:
And whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Avcharbhai Mohanbhai Upasaria, R/o Rajkot at Bhavnagar Road, Nr. Mannar Co-op. Hsg. Society, Nr. Nala, Rajkot, that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said Shri Avcharbhai Mohanbhai Upasaria, be detained.
Now, of course, it cannot be denied that the detention order (which is in English) does specifically refer to ‘public order’, but then we also cannot be oblivious to the fact that the order of detention is always based and passed on the basis of the ground of detention, and in the grounds of detention (which are in Gujarati language as pointed out by Miss Kachhavah the expression used is ‘social order’. Now it is not possible to reconcile two expressions ‘social order; and ‘public order’ as undisputably, both have different meaning and connotation. Under the circumstances, it is very clear that no amount of argument on behalf of the respondents can savage the situation in favour of sustaining the detention order. If in the ground of detention, the impugned order was sought to be passed on the ground of alleged ‘land grabbing’ activities disturbing and shattering social order then in that case, the order of detention cannot be defended by saying that the same was Passed on the basis of the ‘public order’ as specifically referred to in the order itself
4. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation whatsoever in holding that the impugned order of detention stands clearly vitiated as the subjective satisfaction is reached not on the basis of disturbance to the ‘public order’, but as the same appears to have been reached on the basis of disturbance of ‘social order’, which is never in contemplation under Section 3(1) of the Act. Since this petition is to be allowed on the above point, Miss Kachhavah has not pressed other points.
5. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 12-8-1990 at Annexure ‘A’ is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner-detenu is ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in Jail in any other matters. Rule made absolute.