B. S. KAPADIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 11-6-1993 passed against him by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedanad, exercising power under PASA Act on his being satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from carrying on his bootlegging activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order it is necessary to detain him. He was served with the order on the same day along with the grounds of detention. ( 2 ) ON perusal of the grounds of detention it appears that one case is filed against the petitioner wherein 2,568 foreign liquor bottles worth Rs. 1,47,175. 00 were seized. In addition to that 2,078 bottles of beer worth Rs. 86,340. 00 were also seized and a Maruti van worth Rs. 1,40,000. 00 was also seized. There were also other materials in the shape of statements of four witnesses with regard to the incident. Taking into consideration the aforesaid material and other circumstances the detaining authority passed the aforesaid order. ( 3 ) ON 23 March 1994 when this matter is listed herein, Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing for Mr. P. M. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has raised a contention before us that the representation dated 24th January 1994, made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner to the Honble the Chief Minister, has not been considered at all. However, this point was not specifically raised and therefore, the petitioner made an application raising a specific point for amending the petition and Miscellaneous Application for amendment was allowed and the point is specifically raised in the petition as ground No. "z" on page No. 16e of the petition. To that affidavit-in-reply is also filed by the State Government. (1) Spl. Cri. Appli. No. 35 of 1993 decided by Gujarat High Court. ( 4 ) IN support of the aforesaid contention that the representation was sent, Mr. Prajapati has pointed out to us that the said representation was sent to the Honourable chief Minister, Shri Chimanbhai Patel, and it was addressed to New Sachivalaya, gandhinagar and was sent on 25th January 1994 and the acknowledgement was received back on 31st January 1994. From that it is very clear that the learned advocate has sent the representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, in affidavit-in-reply it is stated in para 8 as under : "8. From that it is very clear that the learned advocate has sent the representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, in affidavit-in-reply it is stated in para 8 as under : "8. With reference to para z of the petition, I say that the Government in home Department has not received the representation dated 24-1-1994 addressed to Honble Chief Minister, State of Gujarat, till the date. " the said affidavit is sworn by the Under Secretary to Government, Home department (Spl. ). ( 5 ) WHEN the aforesaid acknowledgement along with the postal receipt of registering the same was pointed out to the learned A. P. P. Shri S. R. Divetia, has raised a contention that the representation is to be made to the State Government under Sec. 9 of the PASA Act. It can also be made under Sec. 15 of the said Act to the State Government. He says that in the grounds of detention order also it was specifically mentioned as to whom the representation should be made by a separate annexure. So far as representation to the State Government is concerned, it was addressed to "deputy Secretary, Home Department (Special-3), Gujarat Government, secretariat, Gandhinagar. " When it was not sent to the said authority it cannot be said a representation to the State Government. It is rather very technical argument advanced by Mr. S. R. Divetia. It may be pointed out that aforesaid requirement pointing out to whom the representation can be made was introduced in view of the interpretation by the Supreme Court of the provision of Art. 22 (5) of the constitution of India. When there is a preventive detention earliest opportunity to make a representation should be afforded and when the detenu does not know to whom the representation to be made or where to be made, it was necessary to give such details and accordingly they are given. That does not mean that the Chief minister or the Home Minister who, under the Rules of the Business of the government, are authorised to exercise powers of the State Government cannot decide the representation. It is true that for the purpose of facility of sending the same the address of the Deputy Secretary is given. That does not mean that the Chief minister or the Home Minister who, under the Rules of the Business of the government, are authorised to exercise powers of the State Government cannot decide the representation. It is true that for the purpose of facility of sending the same the address of the Deputy Secretary is given. That does not mean that the deputy Secretary robs away the power of the Chief Minister or the Home Minister or other authority who is under the Rules of Business entitled to exercise powers. Now so far as the State is concerned, as defined in Sec. 30 of the General Clauses act it means Governor of the State. The Governor has also to act as per the advice of the Council and there are also Rules of Business, 1990. Instructions are also published regarding Business of Government issued under Rule 15 of the Gujarat government Rules of Business, 1990. As per the instruction 4 (1) (A) which is in part II except as otherwise provided in the instructions, the cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by or under the authority of the Minister in charge who may by means of standing orders give such directions as he thinks it fit for the disposal of the cases in the department. There is no dispute on the point that on the date when the aforesaid representation was made on 29th January 1994, Mr. Chimanbhai patel, the Honble Chief Minister, was holding the portfolio of the Home Department and therefore, he was also the Home Minister. Similar such point was also considered in the Special Criminal Application No. 35 of 1993, decided by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. D. Shah and S. M. Soni, JJ. In the last portion of para 6 it is observed as under :"6. . . . . It may be noted at this stage that the Minister is under the Rules of Business the authority competent to decide the representation made by the detenu under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. " ( 6 ) NOW, when that is so, the representation which was sent to the Chief Minister with the name of Chimanbhai who was holding the portfolio of Home Ministry was the State and the same should have been considered. " ( 6 ) NOW, when that is so, the representation which was sent to the Chief Minister with the name of Chimanbhai who was holding the portfolio of Home Ministry was the State and the same should have been considered. However, the reply is quite strange inasmuch as the Home Department disclaims to have received the same. Before filing the affidavit, really speaking, the concerned officer of the Home Department should have made enquiry as to whether the office of the Chief Minister in Sachivalaya has received any such representation as he was holding the portfolio of Home Minister also particularly when the specific point is raised in para 2 of the petition. Normally, if any such representation is received by the office of the Chief Minister and the concerned Minister is different from the Chief minister, certainly that may be sent to the department. Here, in this case though the Chief Minister was holding the portfolio of the Home Department still, however, that office should have sent it to the Home Department. However, if it was not sent to the Home Department, it does not cease to be the representation made by the petitioner to the State Government and it is clear that though it was sent on 24th January 1994, it has not been considered. In that view of the matter, on this ground alone the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. In view of the fact that the representation made by the petitioner has not been considered by the State Government, the continued detention has become illegal, hence the respondents are directed to release the petitioner forthwith if no more required in any other case. Accordingly Rule is made absolute. .