Pattanaik, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The detenu, who has been detained by the detaining authority under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short 'PASA') approached the Gujarat High Court for quashing the order of detention dated 13-8-1998 in Special Civil Application No. 6896 of 1998. The said application was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated 5-4-99 and the aforesaid order has been assailed in the Special Leave Petition in this Court. The detenu has also filed an independent writ petition under Article 32, challenging his detention under several grounds. Both, the Special Leave Petition and the Writ Petition having been heard together are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) The detaining authority on being satisfied from the activities of the detenu that he belongs to a notorious gang and the members of the gang hatched conspiracy to extort money from the people who are engaged in building construction business in the city by putting the people under threat of fear of death, was satisfied that the detenu is a "dangerous person" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act and the activities of the detenu and his gang members were such that for maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain the detenu and accordingly the order of detention against the detenu was passed. Immediately after the order of detention was passed, the detenu approached the Gujarat High Court as already stated inter alia on the ground that the single activity of the detenu for which C.R. No. 36/97 under Sections 120-B, 387 and 506(2), I.P.C. had been registered is not sufficient to hold him to be a "dangerous person" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the act and as such the order of detention is vitiated. By the impugned judgment, the High Court came to the conclusion that the satisfaction of the detaining authority was not based solely on the incident culminating in registration of the criminal case under Sections 120-B, 387 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code but also the incidents that happened on 26-7-98 and 2-8-98 about which the two witnesses have stated before the detaining authority and therefore, the satisfaction of the detaining authority, holding the detenu to be a "dangerous person" cannot be said to be vitiated.;