J. U. MEHTA, R. D. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is the detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 1-10-1991 passed by respondent No. 1 herein under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act. ( 2 ) THE grounds of detention dated 1-10-1991 along with the materials were supplied to the detention on 1-10-1991 i. e. at the time of the execution of the order. ( 3 ) THE grounds of detention inter alia stated that the detenu is a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act. Six cases are set out in the grounds of detention to show that the detenu is involved in the said cases under the Bombay Prohibition Act out of which four cases are pending in the Court for trial and two cases at serial Nos. 5 and 6 are under investigation. It is also stated that the detenu is storing illegally the liquor and is selling the same and thus through his associates he is conducting these illegal activities in the area of Gomtipur and also beating innocent persons and the businessmen on suspicion that they are supplying the information regarding their activities to the police. It is also stated that because of such activities the residents and the businessmen of the said area apprehend insecurity to their person and property and thus he has become an obstruction to the maintenance of public order. The impugned order of detention is annexed at Annexure A to the petition and the grounds of detention are annexed at Annexure B to the petition. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had made a representation to respondent No. 1 on 18-10-1991 and the said representation was rejected by the detaining authority on 21-10-1991. The meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 29-10-1991 and the said representation was not placed before the Advisory Board and therefore the continued detention of the detenu has become illegal and void inasmuch as there was a breach of Section 11 of the Act. ( 5 ) NO affidavit is filed on behalf of any of the respondents in spite of sufficient time being given to file affidavit-in-reply. ( 6 ) THIS petition was admitted on 21-10-1991 and Rule was made returnable on 26-11-1991. ( 5 ) NO affidavit is filed on behalf of any of the respondents in spite of sufficient time being given to file affidavit-in-reply. ( 6 ) THIS petition was admitted on 21-10-1991 and Rule was made returnable on 26-11-1991. At the time of admission Mr. L. R. Pujari learned A. P. P. waived service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. Even then the affidavit was not filed on the date when the Rule was made returnable. Thereafter also the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents asked for time to file the affidavit and the same was given to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor to enable him to file affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondents. However till today no affidavit-in-reply is filed by any of the respondents. ( 7 ) MR. S. R. Divetia learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appealing for the respondents was asked to make a statement whether in fact the representation made by the detenu on 19-10-1991 was placed before the Advisory Board. After varification Mr. Divetia submitted that the representation made by the detenu to the detaining authority was not placed before the Advisory Board. Section 11 of the Act reads as under: In every case where a detention order has been made under this Act the State Government 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 grounds on 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 by such officer under sub-Section (3) of Section 3. Thus under this Section a duty is cast on the appropriate Government to place before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 10 of the Act within three weeks from the date of detention the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and the representation if any made by the person affected by the order. In the present case the meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 29-10-1991 and the representation dated 18-10-1991 was rejected by the detaining authority on 21-10-1991 and the said papers were not placed before the Advisory Board. In the present case the meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 29-10-1991 and the representation dated 18-10-1991 was rejected by the detaining authority on 21-10-1991 and the said papers were not placed before the Advisory Board. Therefore in our opinion it has affected the right of the detenu to have his representation considered by the Advisory Board and thus the continued detention of the detenu becomes illegal and void. ( 8 ) IN the result this Petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention and the continued detention of the detenu are quashed and set aside and the petitioner-detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (NVA) Rule made absolute. .