G. T. NANAVATI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition was heard earlier by a Division Bench consisting of our learned brothers S. B. Majmudar and V. H. Bhairavia JJ. On 2-5-1989. At that time various points were raised but only one point was pressed and other points wore given up. The point that was raised on behalf of the petitioner was that after the petitioner was heard by the Advisory. Board on 29-7-1988 he had sent a representation to the Board on 2-8-1988. The said representation was received by the Board on 3 but it had sent its report giving opinion against the detenu on 6-8-1988 without considering the representation and therefore the continued detention of the petitioner should be regarded as illegal. In view of this contention the Division Bench had issued notice to the Advisory Board. On 5 Mr. M. D. Pandya Public Prosecutor appeared for the Advisory Board and made a statement that alter hearing the detenu on 29 the Board had already taken a decision on that day and only writing of report was deferred and ultimately the report was sent on 6 As the representation of the detenu was received after the decision was already taken by the Board it was not taken into consideration. Now the petition has come up before us for hearing the only point which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner. ( 2 ) IT is an admitted position that the detenu made a representation on 1-8-1988 and the same was sent by the Jail Authorities to the State Government and the Advisory Board on 2-8-1988. Both the authorities had received the same on 3-8-1988. The State Government aster receiving the same on 3 considered and rejected it on 4-8-1988. The Advisory Board had fixed the hearing of the petitioners case on 29-7-1988 On that date the petitioner was personally heard. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had informed the Advisory Board that he would be sending any representation in writing thereafter or that he had come in possession of some more material which if it had been considered by the Advisory Board would have possibly changed its decision. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had informed the Advisory Board that he would be sending any representation in writing thereafter or that he had come in possession of some more material which if it had been considered by the Advisory Board would have possibly changed its decision. What is urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate person and was not informed that he should make a representa- tion to the Advisory Board before it takes a decision It was therefore necessary for the Board it being under a legal obligation to consider detenus representation to consider it even though it was received after it had taken the decision but before it had sent its opinion. The function of the Advisory Board would come to an end only when it sends its opinion under Section 12 of the Act. He also submitted that the State Government should have also forwarded the representation received by it to the Advisory Board as the Advisory Board had not given its opinion till that date. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in S. K. Shekawat v. The State of West Bengal (1975) 3 SCC 249 . In that case the State Government had received the representation of the detenu after the Advi- sory Board had made its report but before it had confirmed the order of detention. The Su- preme Court held that as the order of detention was not confirmed it was necessary for the State Government to consider the said representation before confirming the order of detention. The Supreme Court pointed out that over and above the opinion of the Advisory Board the State Government has to consider the representation of the detenu if made for the purpose of deciding whether or not to confirm the order of detention. As regards the obligation of the State Government to forward the representation of the detenu received after the prescribed period within which it has to place before the Advisory Board the grounds and other material the Su- preme Court did not express any opinion. As regards the obligation of the State Government to forward the representation of the detenu received after the prescribed period within which it has to place before the Advisory Board the grounds and other material the Su- preme Court did not express any opinion. Therefore we will have to consider the validity of the contentions of the petitioner with reference to Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 Section 11 reads as under:11 In every case where a detention order has been made under this Act the State Gov- ernment shall within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Section 10 the ground son which the order has been made and the representation if any made by the person affected by the order and where the order has been made by an authorised officer also the report made by such officer under sub-section (3) of Section 3. This section imposes an obligation upon the State Government to place before the Advisory Board the material specified in the section within the specified time It does not provide that the State shall also place before the Advisory Board any representation received by it from the person affected by the order even when it is received after three weeks It is however not necessary to express any opinion on this point as in this case the detenu had addressed his repre- sentation both to the State Government and the Advisory Board. One copy of the representa- tion was already forwarded by the Jail Authority to the Advisory Board. The State Government was therefore aware of the fact that the representation which was made to it was also submitted directly to the Advisory Board. Under these circumstances if the State Govern- ment had not thought it fit to forward the representation received by it to the Advisory Board it cannot be said that as a result thereof any of the rights of the petitioner had been violated. ( 3 ) WHAT is next required to be considered is whether the Advisory Board should have considered the said representation as it had by then not forwarded its opinion for consideration of any other material after hearing the detenu. ( 3 ) WHAT is next required to be considered is whether the Advisory Board should have considered the said representation as it had by then not forwarded its opinion for consideration of any other material after hearing the detenu. Only thing it is required to do thereafter is to submit its report to the State Government. We are of the opinion that though the section does not specifically provide that after hearing is over it is not required to consider further material it cannot be interpreted to mean that in no case the Advisory Board is required to consider the representation received by it after it has heard the detenu and made up its mind but before it has forwarded its opinion to the State Government. So also it cannot be interpreted to mean that in all cases the Advisory Board must consider such a representation. A clover detenu may go on submitting written representations after personal hearing and thus making it difficult for the Advisory Board to submit its report to the State Government within the period prescribed by the section. Whether such a representation ought to be considered by the Advisory Board or not would depend upon the facts of each case Where there is a breach of an express provision contained either in Article 22 of the Constitution or in the Act relating to preventive detention or of a provision which can be read therein by necessary implication it will have to be held that it has either vitiated the detention order or rendered the detention illegal But when a breach is not of that type the question whether it has vitiated the detention order or rendered the detention illegal will have to be determined on the basis of facts of each case. ( 4 ) IN this case the Advisory Board had not only heard the petitioner on 29-7-1988 but it had already taken a firm decision on that date. It is not the case of the petitioner that he would not state before the Advisory Board on 29-7-1988 whatever he wanted to say for some reason and that he would submit the same only on 1-8-1988. It is not the case of the petitioner that he would not state before the Advisory Board on 29-7-1988 whatever he wanted to say for some reason and that he would submit the same only on 1-8-1988. It is also not the case of the petitioner that in the representation made on 1-8-1988 he had pointed out some new facts or circumstances which would have persuaded the Advisory Board to change its opinion in favour of the detenu. After considering the facts of this case it is not possible to say that the Advisory Board by not considering the representation of the detenu had either violated Article 22 (5) of the Consti- tution or Section 12 of the Act Therefore on this ground continued detention of the petitioner cannot be regarded as illegal. ( 5 ) AS we do not find any substance in the only contention raised on behalf of the petition this petition fails. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .