B. S. APADIA, J. ( 1 ) HE present petition is filed by the detenu against the order of detention passed against him on 13/06/1987 by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad under Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary to make an order directing that the present petitioner should be detained. The said order was executed on the same day and he was also supplied with the grounds of detention Annexure C to the petition on 16th of June 1987 ( 2 ) ON perusal of the grounds it appears that there are six cases filed against him under Prohibition Act and there were cases under Secs. 66b and 65e. The case No. 628 of 1985 was pending the trial and others were under investigation. Accordingly the detaining authority was satisfied that the present petitioner was a bootlegger. He also relied on the statements of certain persons recorded by him on 13/05/1987 and he was also satisfied that the petitioners activities as bootlegger were such as to disturb the public order. He also considered the other relevant circumstances for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to pass the detention order against the present petitioner and accordingly he passed the impugned order of detention. ( 3 ) IN this petition various grounds were raised but at the time of argument Mr. H. L. Patel learned Advocate for the petitioner pressed only one point. The said point is that the detaining authority has failed to discharge his statutory obligation under Sec. 3 (3) of the PASA Act to forthwith report the fact of detention alongwith the grounds of under and other relevant papers to the State Government and according to his submission in paragraph 13 of the petition the continued detention is bad in law. The detaining authority has filed counter affidavit and while dealing with this point raised in paragraph 13 of the petition he only stated that this aspect is already dealt with in the beginning paragraphs and the Court may permit him to refer so and rely upon the same. The detaining authority has filed counter affidavit and while dealing with this point raised in paragraph 13 of the petition he only stated that this aspect is already dealt with in the beginning paragraphs and the Court may permit him to refer so and rely upon the same. On perusal of the earlier paragraphs and particularly paragraph 3 thereof it is clear that the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner detenu in Sabarmati Prison on 16/06/1987 Thereafter it is stated on oath by the detaining authority that the report which is required to be sent to the State Government alongwith the grounds of detention and other materials which have bearing on the impugned order of detention was sent to the State Government on 16/06/1987 i. e. within the stipulated period of seven days and the State Government in its turn approved the same by an order dated 17/06/1987 However at the time of hearing Mr. Divetia learned Addl. Public Prosecutor stated that in fact the fact of intimation was reported to the State Government by the letter dated 13/05/1987 and therefore there is proper compliance with the statutory requirement under Sec. 3 (3) of the PASA Act ( 4 ) ON plain reading of Sec. 3 (3) of the said Act it is clear that the detaining authority is required to report forthwith the fact of passing the detention order to the State Government together with the grounds of detention and other materials which have bearing on the impugned order of detention. It is also clear that wherever the Legislature is using the word forthwith it is so advisedly using it and on perusal of the entire scheme it is very clear that there is a very tight schedule of time. Immediately on getting the report together with the grounds and other materials the State Government has to consider the same for the purpose of approval and if the approval is not given within the period of 12th days the said order does not remain in force after 12 days and therefore the Legislature has advisedly used the word forthwith meaning of which is new settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court. It means it is to be done with all reasonable despatch and without avoidable delay. See AIR 1957 SC page 28 the case of Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar v. Commissioner of Police. It means it is to be done with all reasonable despatch and without avoidable delay. See AIR 1957 SC page 28 the case of Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar v. Commissioner of Police. In the said case the Supreme Court has also in clear terms stated that they do not wish to under-score the need of the strict compliance with that requirement and; it is important requirement intended to secure that the State Government shall have sufficient time for consideration before it decides to give approval within 12 days of making of the order of detention. The Court would therefore insist on the strict compliance with it and not condone avoidable delay. ( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court it is necessary to examine the contention raised by Mr. Patel As per the affidavit of the detaining authority it is mentioned that the report was made on 16/06/1987 However Mr. Divetia learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has pointed out from the file one letter dated 13/06/1987 for the purpose of approval. It is clear from the said letter that there were no enclosures to the said letter and it is also not clear from the contents of the said letter that apart from supporting enclosures there was any reference whatsoever of the grounds and materials having bearing on the matter. ( 6 ) MR. Divetia also pointed out one office noting which was made on 16/06/1987 wherein it is mentioned that the papers were ready and the submission for approval of the order was made. In the absence of any material on the record it is difficult to infer that the papers were sent alongwith the aforementioned letter dated 13/06/1987 particularly in view of the fact that the version of the detaining authority on oath is quite different as stated earlier. It is therefore possible to infer that the detaining authority might have sent a special messenger to Gandhinagar on 16th and the State Government might have received the grounds and other relevant documents of the detention order on 16th and on that very day the submission might have been made. It is therefore possible to infer that the detaining authority might have sent a special messenger to Gandhinagar on 16th and the State Government might have received the grounds and other relevant documents of the detention order on 16th and on that very day the submission might have been made. It is also not the case of the detaining authority that they were busy with preparing the copies of the documents to be supplied and therefore they could not dispatch it earlier than 15th and they posted it on 15th and the State Government received it on 16th itself. In the absence of any such plea we are not called upon to decide the same. On the contrary it appears to us that the copies of the grounds must have been supplied to the State Government only on 16th because the detenu was also served with the grounds on 16th i. e. the third day of his detention in Jail. If at all the copies of grounds were ready on 13th there was no reason why the detenu was not served with the said grounds on that very day. That is additional reason for holding that the grounds and other documents were not sent alongwith the above referred letter dated 13/06/1987 When that is so the question is whether by intimating the fact of detention order simplicitor to the State Government on 13th there is due compliance of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 3 the Act. It may be mentioned that sending the copies of the grounds and other particulars which in the opinion of the detaining authority have bearing on the matter is not a matter of idle formality it is a basic material on the basis of which the detention order is passed by the detaining authority and the State Government has to consider the said materials before approving the order. In that view of the matter mere intimation of the fact of the detention order to the State Government in absence of copies of grounds and other particulars having bearing on the matter cannot be said to be due compliance of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the Act. In that view of the matter mere intimation of the fact of the detention order to the State Government in absence of copies of grounds and other particulars having bearing on the matter cannot be said to be due compliance of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the Act. In that view of the matter we ale constrained to hold that in this case the detaining authority has failed to forthwith send the report alongwith the grounds and other materials to the State Government as required under Sec. 3 (3) of the Act. No explanation has been given on the point as to why they have not sent the papers before 16th and whether the delay was unavoidable. We may take judicial notice of the fact that 13th was a closed Saturday and 14th was Sunday and therefore they could have prepared the papers on 15th and dispatched the same by post or otherwise to the State Government on 15th or 16th. But as stated above no such case is made out by the State Government or the detaining authority in the counter affidavit nor any such case is canvassed before us by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor with the result that there is unexplained delay which has resulted in non-compliance of the statutory mandate under Sec. 3 (3) of the Act. Hence the continued detention is bad and illegal. ( 7 ) IN the result we allow this petition holding that the continued detention is bad and illegal and we order that the detenu would be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Accordingly rule is made absolute. Rule made absolute. .