JUDGMENT (ORAL) S.W. Puranik J.- The Petitioner is detained since 1.6.1991 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug Offenders Act, 1981, passed by the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner detenu had challenged the said order of detention earlier by his Criminal Writ Petition No. 804 of 1991 but the said challenge was negatived by this Court by its Judgment dated 25/26.9.1991. The Petitioner filed second Criminal Writ Petition being No. 1273 of 1991 which again proved futile and was dismissed on 28.10.1991. The Petitioner has come up with this third Writ Petition on a new ground of challenge. It is contended in paragraph 8 of the present Petition that the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Desk Officer Mr. S.S. Kelkar in the earlier Criminal Writ Petition No. 804 of 1991 shows that while rejecting petitioner's representation on 2.8.1991 and subsequent confirming the order of detention on 2.8.1991, the opinion of the Advisory Board was not even in existence on that day and on the face of it, it is apparent that the Respondent had made up their mind before the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board. 2. Shri A.V. Bajaj, leamed Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the present affidavit indicates that the representation of the petitioner dated 28.7.1991 was received in the Home Department on 30.7.1991 and was placed before the Minister on 31.7.1991. It further indicates that upon consideration, the Hon'ble Minister rejected the said representation on 2.8.1991. The affidavit-in-reply further states that the report of the Advisory Board was received by the Home Minister on 20.8.1991 and was considered by the Hon'bIe Minister on 22.8.1991. On the said date, the Hon'ble Minister also considered the representation which was forwarded by the detenu to the Advisory Board earlier and which had been received by the Hon'ble Minister along with the Advisory Board's report. The Hon'ble Minister however, rejected the representation ta the Advisory Board and confirmed the order of detention which was issued on 27:8.1991. Shri Bajaj then pointed out that according to the earlier affidavit filed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 804 of 1991, the same Desk Officer Mr. S.S. Kelkar had stated that the Minister considered the representation carefully and rejected the same on 2.8.1991. Shri Bajaj then pointed out that according to the earlier affidavit filed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 804 of 1991, the same Desk Officer Mr. S.S. Kelkar had stated that the Minister considered the representation carefully and rejected the same on 2.8.1991. It further states that the reply to the representation was given on 2.8.1991 itself and that the representation was thus expeditiously and independently considered by the Government. In the earlier affidavit, no special reference was made to the date of the report of the Advisory Board but in the present affidavit in Schedule in para 3 of the affidavit, the Desk Officer has stated that the opinion of the Advisory Board was dated 8.8.1991 which was received in the Home Department on 20.8.1991 and the order of detention was confirmed on 27.8.1991. 3. On the basis of a silent variance regarding the date 22.8.1991 Mr. Bajaj submitted that apparent]y the Minister had pre-judged the issue while rejecting the representation on 2.8.1991 and had not awaited the report of the Advisory Board. For this submission he relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India1. 4 We have carefully gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Desk Officer in the present Petition as also in the earlier Petition. We find that the date of representation of the detenu is 28.7. 1991 in both the affidavits. It was received in the Home Department on 30.7.1991 in both the affidavits. It was placed before the Hon'ble Minister on 31.7.1991 and the Hon'ble Minister rejected the same on 2.8.1991 according to both the affidavit and the order of detention was confirmed on 27.8.1991 according to both the affidavits. The only variance is that in the present affidavit, it is stated that the report of the Advisory Board was considered by the Minister on 22.8.1991 which statement does not find place in the earlier affidavit in Criminal Writ Petition No. 804 of 1991. We do not find that there is any variance as such except for the said omission. Further more it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that insofar as Advisory Board's report and its consideration was concerned, that was not an issue in the earlier Writ Petition and, therefore, the omission. 5. We do not find that there is any variance as such except for the said omission. Further more it is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that insofar as Advisory Board's report and its consideration was concerned, that was not an issue in the earlier Writ Petition and, therefore, the omission. 5. The perusal of the Judgment cited supra on behalf of the Petitioner it is in facta suggestion on the part of the Supreme Court to the Government if a representation is received from the detenu at the time the Advisory Board is seized of the matter for the purpose of giving its report and opinion to the Government, it is advisable that the Government instead of considering the representation directly should forward the same also to the Advisory Board so as to secure its opinion for final consideration. They have also observed that no doubt the Government has a right to consider the representation even after the opinion of the Advisory Board is received. In the event, the Board recommends that there is no merit in the Order of detention the Government has no alternative but to revoke the order of detention but if the Board Advises to detain the detenu, it is yet open to the Government to revoke the order of detention upon consideration of the representation as also suo motu. However, the Court has observed "The time imperative for consideration of representation can never be absolute or obsessive. It depends upon the necessities and the time at which the representation is made. They have suggested: "The representation may be received after the. case of the detenuis referred to the Board. Even in this situation the representation should be forwarded to the Advisory Board provided the Board has not concluded the proceedings. In both the situations there is no question of consideration of the representation before the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. Nor it could be said that the Government has delayed consideration of the representation, unnecessarily awaiting the report of the Board. It is proper for the Government in such situations to await the report of the Board. In the later part of paragraph. 16 of the Judgment the Supreme Court has again reiterated the suggestion in the following language. Nor it could be said that the Government has delayed consideration of the representation, unnecessarily awaiting the report of the Board. It is proper for the Government in such situations to await the report of the Board. In the later part of paragraph. 16 of the Judgment the Supreme Court has again reiterated the suggestion in the following language. It is therefore, proper that the Government considers the representation in the aforesaid two situations only after the receipt of the report of the Board. Throughout the Judgment, the Supreme Court has kept in mind that the Government has an independent power to consider and deal with the representation. However, they have suggested that in certain situation it is proper for the Government to await for the Advisory Board's report. Even in such situation the Court has observed that the Government's power to revoke the detention upon consideration of representation is of course reserved untrammelled. 6. The entire tenor of the order does not indicate that the-Supreme Court has given a mandate in each and every case and non-compliance thereof cannot be a ground for agitation. 7. Further on perusal of the original record produced by the Desk Officer concerned before us, we find that the dates stated in the affidavit are correct and that the representation was expeditiously and independently considered by the Minister within 5 days of its receipt on the basis of the material that was available with the Home Department. This was not a fit case where the Government should have needed to await the Advisory Board's report for which there could have been a long wait. 8. In the result therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of detention dated 1.6.1991 and hence the Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. 1. 1991 Cr. LJ. 790.