B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioner-detenu has challenged the detention order passed against him by the Commissioner of Police Rajkot City on 3 under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act. The petitioner was also served with the grounds of detention. The activities of the petitioner as dangerous person were held to be prejudicial to the public order. We do not think it necessary to give details about grounds of detention. However it appears from the file that subsequently the Advisory Board meeting was held on 11-11-1992 and the Advisory Board gave its opinion in the case of the petitioner on 20-11-1992. ( 2 ) MR. P. M. Thakkar learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised various grounds in the petition for the purpose of challenging the validity of the order of detention. However at the time of hearing he has pressed only one ground before us that the order of detention is not confirmed though the Advisory Board gave its opinion that there are sufficient grounds for detention. He further submitted that there was no application of mind while communicating to the detenu the alleged confirmation inasmuch as the letter dated 3-11-1992 communicating the confirmation clearly speaks about the opinion of the Advisory Board on the point of having sufficient grounds for detention of the person who has been detained under Order No. PCB-DTN-SGM-14-91 dated 24-12-1991 passed by the Commissioner of Police Rajkot. However the number of the present detention Order is PCB/dtn/pasa/sm/59/92 dated 3-1-1992. So. the communication which is served on the petitioner is in respect of the earlier order of detention passed on 24-12-1991 by the Commissioner of Police Rajkot. After giving the said preface what is stated in the said communication dated 30 signed by the Under Secretary to Govt. of Gujarat Home Department (Special) is that in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act the Government of Gujarat hereby confirms the said detention order and continues the detention of Shri Samant Gogan Mer. From the said communication it is clear that what was confirmed was the earlier order and not the present detention order. ( 3 ) WITH a view to find out as to whether what is submitted by Mr. P. M. Thakkar learned Advocates for the petitioner is correct or not Mr. From the said communication it is clear that what was confirmed was the earlier order and not the present detention order. ( 3 ) WITH a view to find out as to whether what is submitted by Mr. P. M. Thakkar learned Advocates for the petitioner is correct or not Mr. K. V. Shelat learned Addl. PP has placed before us the original file on perusal of which we have found that the order which has been confirmed by the Government was not the present order but the earlier one. However Mr. Shelat was at pains to point out that the opinion given by the Advisory Board on 20-11-1992 has been considered by the Secretary Home Department for the purpose of confirming the detention order. It is true but in fact what is considered by them is the previous order and not the present one. Merely because there is nothing on the file for deciding to confirm the present detention order it cannot be said that the present order was confirmed. Under the circumstances we agree with the submission made by Mr. Thakkar that the present detention order has not been confirmed. ( 4 ) THE next question to be considered is what would be the consequent of the said position. Section 14 of the PASA Act provided that maximum period for which a person may be detained in pursuance of any order made under this Act which has been confirmed under Section 13 shall be one year from the date of surrender. It is therefore clear that unless the detention order is confirmed it cannot be said that maximum period of detention would be one year. It is rather regretting that in such a serious case the Govt. has acted very mechanically even after taking of the decision by the Secretary for confirming the detention order. While passing the order of confirmation and while communicating the same one has to consider as to which order is decided to be confirmed. If the authorities would have kept this in mind possibly this consequence would not have taken place. When the maximum period of detention is not applicable to the present case and when the Govt. has not prescribed any lesser period of detention also the continued detention would be bad and illegal. If the authorities would have kept this in mind possibly this consequence would not have taken place. When the maximum period of detention is not applicable to the present case and when the Govt. has not prescribed any lesser period of detention also the continued detention would be bad and illegal. ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter in absence of the confirmation of the detention order we hold that the continued detention is bad and illegal and on that ground the petition is allowed. The petitioner-detenu is ordered to be released forth if not more required in any other case. Rule is accordingly made absolute. (NSS) petition allowed. .