JUDGMENT : Mr. K.J. Vaidya, J. The present petition is filed by the petitioner-Mahipatsinh Nathubha Jadeja who came lobe detained pursuant to the impugned order of detention dated 8.4.1992, passed by the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anli-Social Activities Act, 1985. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention iner alia praying for quashing and setting aside the same and setting him at liberty forthwith. 2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, it may be briefly stated that the petitioner came to be detained as a "Bootlegger", "Dangerous Person" and "Drug Offender" within the meaning of Sections 2(b). 2(c), and 2(f) of the PASA Act, on the basis of alleged grounds of detention dated 8.4.1992 at Annexure-B on page-21 of this petition. A copy of these grounds of detention (Annexure-B) along with other relevant documents were duly served upon the petitioner at the time of his detention. The Detaining Authority, after duly considering the aforesaid material placed before it was quite satisfied that the alleged illegal activities being carried on by the petitioner were indeed prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and therefore, with a view to prevent him from repeating the said activities, disturbing the public order in future, it was felt necessary to detain him. On the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority so deified, it ultimately clamped down order of detention on 4.1992 and sent the petitioner to jail, giving rise to the present writ petition, as stated above in pars I of this petition. 3. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner though has raised several contentions in the memo of the petitions he has ultimately pressed into service the only point, taken in ground (0), which according to him goes to the root, invalidating the further continued detention of the petitioner. The said contention in substance reads as under. 3. Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner though has raised several contentions in the memo of the petitions he has ultimately pressed into service the only point, taken in ground (0), which according to him goes to the root, invalidating the further continued detention of the petitioner. The said contention in substance reads as under. "That the representation personally submitted by the detenu to the Advisory Board on 16.5.1992at the time of hearing before it which the State Government also in its turn was under Constitutional obligation to consider the same in respective of the ultimate opinion o f t he Advisory Board has till today not been considered which clearly violated the invaluable right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution rendering his further continued detention illegal and unconstitutional." In support of the above contention Mr. Thakkar has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Govind bhai D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1992(1) GLR, 240, Mr. Thakkar, has also invited our attention to yet one more unreported decision of this Court (Coram: A.P. Ravani and K.R. Vyas, JJ) rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 72.8/ 91, decided on 14.8.1991, in which the reliance is placed on the Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of 'Smt. Gracy v. State of Kerala and Another, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1030. 4. Mr. Y.F. Mehta, the learned APP in tact was unable to controvert the above settled legal position except by asserting that since the Advisory Board has not forwarded the said representation dated 15.9.1992 to the State Government, no blame should be placed at the door of the State Government. Now despite this point has been specifically raised by way of an amendment as per the order of this Court, long hack, no reply affidavit is tiled on behalf of the State in support of the oral submission made by the learned APP. Under the circumstances, in view of various decisions referred in pars 3 above, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned A.P.P. Mr. Mehta. Then such is the situation, it is not possible for us to sustain any further the impugned order of detention which stands vitiated for non-consideration of the representation, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Mehta. Then such is the situation, it is not possible for us to sustain any further the impugned order of detention which stands vitiated for non-consideration of the representation, thereby violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The net result of the above discussion is that the impugned order of detention will have to be quashed and set aside. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is ordered to he released forth with unless his presence in jail is required in any other matter. Rule is made absolute. Petition allowed.