B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Who is the father of the detenu has filed the present petition challenging the legality and validity of the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police Baroda against the detenu on 3. 10. 1992 under Sec. 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act. The detenu was also served with the grounds of detention of the same date. ( 2 ) ON perusal of the grounds it appears that there are six criminal cases filed against the detenu under various provisions of the Prohibition Act. Said cases are pending investigation. The case at Sr. No. 4 indicates that there 74 boxes of English liquor valued at Rs. 1 9 400 and one Matador valued at Rs. 40 0 were seized. There were statements of four witnesses. Statements of two witnesses were recorded on 22. 9. 1992 and were also verified on 25. 9. 1992. Statements of other two witnesses were recorded on 23. 10. 1992 and were verified on 25. 9. 1992. The First witness speaks about the incident which look place at 1. 30 p. m. about 20 days back from the date of recording of his statement. The second witness speaks about the incident which took place at about 9. 30 p. m. about 25 days back from the date of recording of his statement. The third witness also speaks about the same incident which is narrated by the second witness. The fourth witness speaks about the incident which took place at 6. 30 p. m. about ton to twelve days back from the date of recording of his statement. Thus in addition to the said criminal cases there are three other incidents narrated by the witnesses. ( 3 ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid material and other relevant aspects the detaining authority came to the subjective satisfaction on the point that it is necessary to detain the detenu to prevent him from continuing his bootlegging activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 4 ) IN this petition various grounds are raised for challenging the legality and validity of the detention order. However Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has pressed before us only one ground that the representation dated 12. 10. ( 4 ) IN this petition various grounds are raised for challenging the legality and validity of the detention order. However Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has pressed before us only one ground that the representation dated 12. 10. 1992 has not been forwarded to the Advisory Board and the same has not been considered by the Advisory Board. This ground is raised in ground No. 13 by amending the petition. ( 5 ) IN this case no affidavit in reply is filed by the respondents. However Mr. Solanki Addl. PP has pointed out from the file that said representation addressed to the Secretary Home Department was received on 17. 10. 1992 and it was decided on 23. 1 and intimation thereof was given on 2. 11 In this case reference to the Advisory Board was made on 21. 10. 1992 and meeting of the Advisory Board was held on 10. 11. 1992. On perusal of the report of the Advisory Board Mr. Solanki states that there is no reference about the said representation being considered by the Advisory Board. It appears that possibly the State Govt. has not sent the said representation to the Board as it was disposed of on 23. 10. 1992. It may be stated that Sec. 11 of the PASA Act clearly gives a mandate to the State Govt. for making a reference within three weeks from the date of detention and at the time of making such reference they have to send to the Board the representation if any made by the person affected by the order. Section 12 further provides that it is the duty of the Board to give report after considering the material placed before it which includes the representation if any made by the detenu. ( 6 ) IN the present the detenus representation dated 12. 10. 1992 has not been sent to the Advisory Board and therefore it was not considered by the Board. Under the circumstances the continued detention of the detenu is bad and illegal. In that view of the matter only on that ground the petition is allowed. The continued detention of the detenu is held to be bad and illegal. The detenu-Laxman alias Lachchu Mohandas Lakhwani is ordered to be released forthwith if no more required in any other case. Rule is accordingly made absolute. Application Allowed. .