KAPADIA J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-detenu has filed the present petition against the detention order passed against him by the Commissioner of Police Vadodara City dated 28-3-1988 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 on his being satisfied with respect to the present petitioner that with a view in preventing the petitioner from acting in any manger prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Vadodara city it was necessary to make an order directing him to be detained. The petitioner was served with the grounds of detention on the same day i. e. 28-348. ( 2 ) ON perusal of the grounds it appears that the petitioner was earlier detained by the order dated 20-9-1985 under the same Act. However as the period of detention for one year was over the Government has released him on 21-9-1986. Even thereafter the petitioner has continued his bootlegging activity and there are as many as five cases filed against him. The first case was filed against him on 6th December 1986 wherein 200 litres of wash along with distillery implements were seized from the custody of the petitioner and offence under Sections 65-f and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act was registered. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on 10-12-86 and case is still pending. The second case filed against the petitioner was in respect of seizing of 350 litres of country liquor from the petitioners residence on 20-9-1987 and criminal case under the provisions 618 656 and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act has been filed against him. The third case filed against the petitioner is on account of seizing of 45 litres of country liquor from his residence on 15-12-87. The fourth case filed against the petitioner is on account of seizing 90 litres of country liquor from his house on 19-1-1988. The fifth case was filed against him on 21-1-1988 as 26 litres of country liquor was seized from his residence and criminal case for the offences under Sections 66 (1) (b) and 65-E of the Prohibition Act has been filed against him. All the aforesaid cases are either pending investigation or pending trial in the Court as stated in the grounds of detention. All the aforesaid cases are either pending investigation or pending trial in the Court as stated in the grounds of detention. ( 3 ) IT also appears from the grounds of detention that four witnesses have given statements against the petitioner in respect of his activities as a bootlegger. However it is clearly mentioned in the grounds that names and addresses were not supplied to the petitioner as the said witnesses had apprehension of danger with regard to persons and properties if their names are disclosed. In that view of the matter the detaining authority also inquired about the truth of the said statements through an officer of the cadre of S. P. and that the said statements were found to be correct. The detaining authority therefore has taken into consideration the anti-social activities of the petitioner and has come to the conclusion that not supplying the names and addresses is in the public interest. ( 4 ) THE detaining authority has also taken into consideration the Chapter case No. 1/80 filed under Section 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. He has also taken into consideration the possibility of externment proceedings under Section 578 of the Bombay Police Act but that was not possible as there was no conviction recorded against the present petitioner. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid material the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the petitioners activity as a bootlegger was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that there was no alternative but to detain him. Accordingly the detention order came to be passed. ( 6 ) IN this petition several grounds have been raised. However Mr. H. L. Patel learned Advocate has raised before us the following three contentions. (1) That possibility of externment proceedings under Section 568 of the Bombay Police Act has not been considered though such possibility under Section 578 was considered and therefore the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority on the point of necessity to detain the present petitioner is vitiated. (2) That there is delay in submitting the report about the detention by the detaining authority and therefore the continued detention is bad and illegal. (2) That there is delay in submitting the report about the detention by the detaining authority and therefore the continued detention is bad and illegal. (3) That names and addresses of the witnesses have not been supplied to the petitioner and that has affected his right of making effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the constitution of India and therefore the continued detention is bad and illegal. ( 7 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned it is clear that the detaining authority has not specifically dealt with the possibility of externing the present petitioner under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act. It is equally true that while considering the necessity of detaining the person the detaining authority has also considered the less drastic remedies. If there is less drastic remedy which is effective that should be adopted instead of detaining a person. ( 8 ) IN support of the said contention Mr. H. L. Patel has cited the judgment of this very Bench delivered in Special Criminal Application No. 1314 on 17-7-87. In the said case externment proceeding under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act was not considered and on that ground the petitioner-detenu was ordered to be released. That was the decision in the said case. It may be noted that every case is to be decided on the basis of the facts and the principle in that before detaining authority should come to the conclusion that it is necessary to detain him and while considering the necessity the detaining authority should also take into consideration as to whether other less drastic remedies would be effective or not. In the present case in beginning of the grounds of detention it is stated that earlier detention order was passed against the petitioner on 20-9-1985 and as the period of one year was over the Govt. has released him on 21-9-1986. Still however it appears from the cases referred to above that the said remedy has not proved to be as much effective as it should be and the petitioner has continued his bootlegging activity and the witnessess also support the said conclusion about the bootlegging activity of the present petitioner which is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order inasmuch as it is likely to cause grave or widespread danger to public health. Having considered this aspect and also the possibility of externing the petitioner under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act the detaining authority came to the conclusion that even more drastic remedy had not the desired effect and therefore it was necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from carrying on the said prejudicial activities. In view of these facts it cannot be said that the aspect of reporting to a less drastic remedy of externing the petitioner was not present to the mind of detaining authority. For all these reasons authority has not considered the less drastic remedy and particularly the remedy under Section 568 of the Bombay Police Act. In view of the particular facts of the case it cannot be said that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority on the point of necessity of the detaining the present petitioner is in any way vitiated. When the detaining authority has considered more drastic remedy it cannot be said that he has not applied his mind to the less drastic remedy of externment under Section 568 of the Bombay Police Act though it is not specifically stated in the grounds of detention. Hence we do not accept the first contention raised by Mr. Patel on behalf of the petitioner and we reject the same. ( 9 ) THE second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is regarding delay in submitting the report about the detention by the detaining authority. It may be stated that the date of detention is 29-3-1988 and the grounds of detention are of 29 The petitioner was detained at about 8 p. m. on 28-3-1988 and on perusal of the letter which was submitted to the State Govt. by detaining authority it appears that the said letter was also typed on 29th March 1988 but it could not be forwarded to the Govt. on that day and therefore the date of the said letter is mentioned as 30-3-1988. Therefore this itself clearly explains as to why the said letter could not be forwarded on 29th and was forwarded on 30th March 1988. It may also be stated that before forwarding the same not merely the fact of detention was to be reported but along with it all the necessary papers in four sets were to be prepared and signed. It may also be stated that before forwarding the same not merely the fact of detention was to be reported but along with it all the necessary papers in four sets were to be prepared and signed. This appears to be proper explanation for not forwarding the report on 29 March 1988. Therefore it cannot be said that the report was not forwarded forthwith by detaining authority If at all there is any delay it is examined by the said letter. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we do not accept this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and we reject the same. ( 10 ) THE last contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is with regard to the non-supply of the names and addresses of the witnesses to the petitioner. According to the petitioner due to the non-supply of names and addresses of the witnesses he could not verify the position with regard to the actual existence of the said witnesses and/or genuineness of the statements of the said witnesess and therefore his light of making effective representation is affected and therefore continued detention is bad. ( 11 ) IT may be stated that it is clearly stated in the grounds of detention the circumstances under which the detaining authority came to the conclusion of not supplying the names and addresses of the witnesses to the petitioner in the public interest. On this point Mr. H. L. Patel has cited the case of Bai Amina reported in XXII GLR 1186. However Mr. Patel has further pointed out that the said decision has been doubted and the matters in the case of Chandulal N. Patel i. e. Special Criminal Application No. 479 of 1986 and in the case of Ramesh Gopalbhai (Cr. L. R. Guj. 1987 p. 368) have been referred to the Full Bench of this Court. ( 12 ) IN that view of the matter the decision on this point is postponed till the judgment of the Full Bench in the aforesaid case is delivered. The parties are directed to move this Court after the aforesaid case is decided by the Full Bench for deciding this matter on the last point. Order accordingly. .