B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner Ashok Chimanlal Mody who is the brother of detenu Bharat Chimanlal Mody challenging the detention order passed against the detenu by the Commissioner of Police Surat on 8-4-1988 on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Nanpura falling under the jurisdiction of Athwa Line Police Station of Surat City it was necessary to make an order directing him to be detained. The detenu was served with the detention order as also grounds of detention. ( 2 ) ON perusal of the ground it appears that during the period from 1981 to 1988 there are nearly about 10 cases under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act filed against him the details of which are shown in Annexure A to the grounds. On reading the said Annexure A it appears that the detenu was involved in the offences under Secs. 66 (1) (b) 65 and 81 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. Looking to the number of bottles of liquor seized from the detenus possession it appears that he was dealing in Indian made English liquor in the names of Brandy Whisky Beer etc. Statements of four witnesses whose names and addresses are also mentioned were relied on by the detaining authority. On the basis of the aforesaid material the detaining authority was subjectively satisfied that the detenu was required to be detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 ( 3 ) IN this petition various grounds have been raised challenging the said detention order passed against the detenu. However Shri S. H. Sanjanwala the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has pressed before us only one ground that the detenu was not supplied with the detailed addresses of the witnesses whose statements are recorded and subsequently relied on by the detaining authority and therefore no adequate opportunity is given to the detenu for making effective representation and therefore his fundamental right under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution of India is violated and on that ground alone the continued detention of the detenu is illegal. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has raised this ground in para 6 of the petition wherein the petitioner who is the brother of the detenu has stated that he personally went at the places mentioned but he could not find out these persons inspite of search and asking various persons in the locality. It is also averred that the petitioner also has sent letters to them by registered post on 14-4-1988 but the said registered letters also returned unserved with the endorsement of the Postal Department to the effect that Not known in three of them and Unclaimed in one of them. ( 5 ) ON this point affidavit-in-reply is filed by the detaining authority and in paras 12 and 13 thereof it is stated that witnesses were genuine and their statements are genuinely recorded and that their statements are not got up. It is also stated that the detenus right to make representation is not affected under Art. 22 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) MR. A. C. Parmar Police Inspector who had recorded the statements of the witnesses has also filed affidavit and para 2 thereof he has denied that no such person of the aforesaid names is traceable in the said area. According to him he has recorded the statements of the witnesses who are existing. Except denial there is no other material supplied by the respondents or the person who recorded the statements of the said witnesses with regard to the complete addresses of the witnesses. ( 7 ) IN this case the petitioner who is the brother of the detenu has made efforts personally as well as by sending letters by registered post to find out the said witnesses but he could not succeed. What Mr. Parmar has stated in his affidavit is that the addresses and the statements which are reflected in the grounds of detention are as per the statements of the witnesses. It appears that Mr. Parmar has not verified the said addresses even subsequently after the point is raised in the petition and before the affidavit is filed by him. It is regretting to note that Mr. Parmar has filed the second affidavit today during the course of hearing but in the said affidavit also he has stated that the addresses mentioned in the statements are according to the say of the witnesses. It is regretting to note that Mr. Parmar has filed the second affidavit today during the course of hearing but in the said affidavit also he has stated that the addresses mentioned in the statements are according to the say of the witnesses. When he has filed the second affidavit certainly he should have verified as to whether the said witnesses are residing at the given addresses or not or whether at the time of recording the statements they were residing at the given addresses or not. ( 8 ) IN that view of the matter the affidavits of Mr. Parmar are not useful to show that complete addresses of the witnesses were given to the detenu. Unless complete addresses are given the detenu would not be in a position to make representation on the point as to whether the said witnesses were either on inimical terms with him or that they have got any special interest against him or that they have given the statements to oblige the Police Department. It is clear that this is a case in which the detaining authority has not claimed any privilege under Sec. 9 (2) of the Act. This is also not a case in which there is non-supply of mere source of information but this is a case in which particulars are necessary in respect of the witnesses who were as per the statements victims of the detenus illegal activity as a bootlegger and particularly the witnesses Narsi Makan Surti and Dineshchandra K. Sharma were the victims on when the detenu got excited and ran after them with hockey-stick or knife. Under the circumstances it is clear that this is a case which clearly falls within the ratio of the judgment in the case of Moti Lal v. State of Bihar AIR 1968 SC 1509 which was followed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 875 of 1987. We are therefore of the view that in this case non-supply of complete addresses of the witnesses has affected the detenus right of adequate opportunity to make effective representation and therefore the continued detention of the detenu is bad and illegal. We are therefore of the view that in this case non-supply of complete addresses of the witnesses has affected the detenus right of adequate opportunity to make effective representation and therefore the continued detention of the detenu is bad and illegal. ( 9 ) IN result the petition is allowed only on this ground The continued detention of the detenu is held to be bad and illegal The detenu-Bharat Chimanlal Mody is ordered to be released forthwith if no more required in any other case. Accordingly rule is made absolute rule made absolute. .