A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) ORDER of detention passed against the petitioner/detenu under the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1585 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been challenged inter alia on the ground that the grounds of detention on the basis of which the satisfaction is required to be arrived at by the detaining authority were not in existence on the date when the order of detention was passed and served upon the detenu. The order of detention is dated 13/05/1987 The grounds of detention served upon the detenu ale dated 17/05/1987 We have looked at the original file shown to us by the learned Counsel for the respondents. It clearly shows that the grounds have been framed on 17/05/1987 ( 2 ) THE provisions of Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India conjoins a duty upon the detaining authority to communicate the grounds on which the order of detention has been made. This provision postulates that the grounds on which the order of detention in made should be made in existence when the order of detention is passed. On this point reference may be made to the following decisions of the Supreme Court. (I) State of Bombay v. Atmaram Shridhar Vaidya reported in AIR 1951 SC 157 . (II) Naresh Chandra Ganguli v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1959 SC 1335 . In the aforesaid decisions it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that before passing order of detention the detaining authority is required to be satisfied that it was necessary to make order of detention. The grounds of detention are required to be communicated to the detenu as soon as practicable. The grounds are conclusion of facts and this conclusion of facts must be in existence when the order of detention is made. That is the basis on which the requisite satisfaction can be arrived at and therefore the grounds of detention must be in existence when the order of detention is made. ( 3 ) IN the instant case the grounds of detention have been framed subsequently. that is four days after the order of detention is passed and executed. On this point there is no controversy. Therefore on this ground alone the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 4 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. that is four days after the order of detention is passed and executed. On this point there is no controversy. Therefore on this ground alone the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 4 ) IN the result the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 13/05/1987 produced at Annexure A to the petition is quashed and set aside. The petitioner/detenu Parshottam Dahyabhai Chunara is ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule made absolute. Rule made absolute. .