S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition uncle; Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is detained under the provisions of sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (PASAA for short) by an order of detention on 24-3-1986 annexure A to the petition has challenged the said order on diverse grounds. The order in question is passed by the District Magistrate Junagadh in exercise of his powers under sec. 3 (1) read with sec. 3 (2) of the PASAA on being satisfied with respect to the petitioner that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order it is necessary to pass the impugned order. The petitioner was also supplied with the grounds of detention ok even date. He was supplied the relevant documents in support of the grounds. ( 2 ) MR. H. L. Patel for the petitioner raised the following contentions in support of the petition : (1) That the Additional Chief Secretary who is said to have decided the petitioners representation against the detention order was not competent to decide the said representation and hence the petitioners representation can be said to have gone undecided by the competent authority and consequently the continued detention of the petitioner has become illegal. (2) Alongwith the grounds of detention the petitioner was not supplied copies of the statements of four witnesses whose statements are listed at serial Nos. 9 11 12 and 13 in the schedule annexed to the grounds of detention and as copies of these statements were not supplied within time to the petitioner his right of representation under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution has got adversely affected and also the petitioners detention is rendered illegal. (3) The grounds mentioned against the petitioner for the purpose of his detention details whereof are found in the grounds of detention and the material supplied alongwith the same. (3) The grounds mentioned against the petitioner for the purpose of his detention details whereof are found in the grounds of detention and the material supplied alongwith the same. do not indicate any incident of disturbance of public order subsequent to 18-8-1985 and consequently the last incident of 18 which at the highest can be said to be a solitary incident resulting in disturbance of public order by the petitioner could not have been relied upon by the detaining authority on 24 for passing the impugned order as the said incident would be too stale to support the satisfaction of the detaining authority that there was present need to detain the petitioner in March 1986 with a view to preventing him from disturbing public order in future. In short it was contended that the incident of 18-8-1985 was too stale to be relied upon for passing the impugned order and there was no live link between the said incident and the impugned order of detention and on that ground also the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 3 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned we may point out that in para 8 of the petition the petitioner has submitted that he had made a representation to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 11-4-1986. However the respondents had not considered the said representation till the date of the petition. In the affidavit-in-reply of Mr. ( 3 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned we may point out that in para 8 of the petition the petitioner has submitted that he had made a representation to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 11-4-1986. However the respondents had not considered the said representation till the date of the petition. In the affidavit-in-reply of Mr. M. T. Parmar it has been pointed out in para 3 that the representation dated 11 made by the petitioner was forwarded by the Superintendent District Jail Jamnagar with a forwarding letter dated 14/15-4-1986 by registered post and the same was received by the Home Department on 17 It has been pointed out further that on that very day the representation was processed and after careful consideration it was rejected on the very same day. The aforesaid averments made in the affidavit-in-reply therefore make it clear that the State of Gujarat had considered the petitioners representation with utmost expedition and there was no undue or unreasonable delay underlying consideration of the said representation. In fairness to Mr. Patel for the petitioner it must be stated that he also did not make any grievance about the same. However his only grievance in this connection centred round the averment found in para 9 (C) of the petition which was added by way of amendment to the petition. The said para recites that the Additional Chief Secretary has no power to consider the petitioners representation. This aspect of the matter is sought to be replied to by the additional affidavit filed by Mr. M. T. Parmar. In para 2 of the said affidavit it has been pointed out that as per Rule 15 of the Rules of business 1984 and as per the Home Department order dated 3-9-1985 bearing No. MHC-1185-3838-K the Additional Chief Secretary Home Department has been delegated with the power to consider the representation of the detenu by the Chief Minister and that the said order will be produced as and when required. When this matter was being argued a xerox copy of the order dated 3-9-1985 passed by the Chief Minister Mr. Amarsinh Chaudhary was placed for our perusal. The said order recites that as per the instruction No. 4 (1) (c) issued under Rule 15 of the Gujarat Government Rules of Business 1984 it was directed by the Chief Minister that for subjects Nos. Amarsinh Chaudhary was placed for our perusal. The said order recites that as per the instruction No. 4 (1) (c) issued under Rule 15 of the Gujarat Government Rules of Business 1984 it was directed by the Chief Minister that for subjects Nos. 1 to 38 as mentioned in part II of the First Schedule to the said rules disposal of cases pertaining to these subjects shall be made by the concerned authorities as indicated in Schedule I II and III of the said Order. When we turn to Schedule No. 1 of the said order we find that 47 subjects are listed under the caption Cases to be disposed of by the Additional Chief Secretary- Secretary and at serial No. 42 of the said Schedule I it found an item which when translated into English reads as under:- Representations received from the detenus. It is therefore clear that the Additional Chief Secretary - Secretary concerned is authorised to deal with the representations of detenus so far as Home Department is concerned. When we turn to the parent rules viz. Gujarat Government Rules of Business 1984 we find that the said Rules have been enacted by the Governor of Gujarat in exercise of the power conferred by clauses (2) and (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution. Rule 4 of the Rules lays down that the business of that Government shall be transacted in the departments specified in the First Schedule and shall be classified and distributed amongst these departments as laid down therein. Rule 15 of the Rules provides that these rules may to such extent as may be necessary be supplemented by instructions to be issued by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. A conjoint reading of rules 4 and 15 show that the Chief Minister can give advice to the Governor for issuing supplementary instructions and accordingly the order dated 3 seems to have been issued. When we turn to the first schedule of the Rules as specified under Rule 4 we find that there are various particulars in the said First Schedule dealing with subjects allotted to different departments. So far as Home Department is concerned at item No. 8 of Part II of the First Schedule are listed subjects allotted to the Home Department. When we turn to the first schedule of the Rules as specified under Rule 4 we find that there are various particulars in the said First Schedule dealing with subjects allotted to different departments. So far as Home Department is concerned at item No. 8 of Part II of the First Schedule are listed subjects allotted to the Home Department. Sub-item (4) of item (8) of Part II of the First Schedule of the Rules deals with public order including prevention detention for reasons connected with the security of State maintenance of public order or the conservation of foreign exchange or prevention of smuggling activities or defence or foreign affairs or security of Indian persons subject to such detention. It is therefore clear that preventive detention is a subject which is allotted to the Home Department and 60 far as this subject is concerned it falls within items 1 to 38 as mentioned in clause (8) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Rules. It is also seen that the order dated 3-9-1985 passed by the Chief Minister clearly indicates that in connection with subjects allotted to the Home Department as per the Gujarat Government Rules of Business the concerned authorities mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the order dated 3-9-1985 shall be entitled to exercise powers in connection with subjects listed in the schedules annexed to the order dated 3-9-1985. As already seen earlier consideration of the representation of the detenu is one of the items mentioned in the said list of subjects found in Schedule I to the order. It must therefore be held that the Additional Chief Secretary was perfectly competent and justified in considering the representation made by the petitioner against his detention order and in deciding the same. Consequently the first contention canvassed by Mr. Patel stands rejected (The rest of the Judgment is not material for the reports.) petition dismissed: Rule discharged. .