SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) THE present Special Criminal Application challenges the impugned order of detention dated 31-12-1993 by the respondent no. 1, the Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad City, passed under the provisions of Prevention of itself. The petitioner, by way of an amendment of para 23a, has alleged inter alia that the 2-6-1994, and in the said representation on behalf of the detenu some documents were demanded, but so far the respondent no. 2 has not supplied the documents demanded by the learned advocate of the detenu. There is an affidavit-in-reply by the Under Secretary to the Government, Home Department stating therein that the representation addressed to the Deputy Chief Minister, Gandhinagar dated 26-9-1994 was received by the Home Department through the Ministers office on 6-10-1994 and the same was considered and rejected on 10-10-1994. ( 2 ) MR. Anil S. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the detenu, in support of the present petition has mainly argued on two points. He has submitted that there is inordinate delay in disposing of the representation dated 26-9-1994 which was received by the office of the Deputy Home Minister on 27-9-1994, and communication about the rejection of the said representation was given only on 15/10/1994. It is submitted further that the Deputy Home Minister ought not to have delayed in forwarding the said representation before the appropriate authority and there is no proper explanation. ( 3 ) MR. Shelat, leaned APP, however, has produced the relevant records which satisfy us that the representation was received by the appropriate authority on 6-10-1994 and it was promptly attended to and the same was disposed on 10-10-1994 and the decision was duly communicated to the detenu. The first point as argued by Mr. Dave, does not attract any merit inasmuch as we are of the view that in the order of detention there is mention of specific authorities to whom the representation has to be made viz. The Detaining Authority, the Advisory Board and the Secretary of Home Department. If the detenu or anybody on behalf of the detenu, makes a representation, the same has to be made before the appropriate authority. True, there are certain decisions that the representation made to the Chief Minister who is heading the State Administration and being in-charge of the Home Deptt. If the detenu or anybody on behalf of the detenu, makes a representation, the same has to be made before the appropriate authority. True, there are certain decisions that the representation made to the Chief Minister who is heading the State Administration and being in-charge of the Home Deptt. , should not cause any delay in disposing of the representation of a person detained under the Detention Act. But any authority and every authority other than the concerned authority would not be equated for the authority responsible to dispose of the representation. In the instant case it has not been shown to us that the Deputy Home Minister was a delegated authority to deal with the representation as found in the case of Smt. Kavita vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, reported at AIR 1981 S 1641. There the facts of the case divulge clearly that in the business pertaining to all the cases of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, and the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Maharashtra Detention Order, there was specific delegation to the Minister of State for Home for disposal. In the present case such facts are absent and the power of delegation has not been proved. On this aspect we hold that unless an appropriate authority is approached by making representation, any other authority and every authority has no statutory obligation to attend the representation promptly as required under detention laws. We find that in receiving the representation on 29-9-1994 and referring to the appropriate authority on 6-10-1994, there is no such inordinate delay that has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu. ( 4 ) SECONDLY it is emphatically argued by Mr. Dave that in the representation certain specific documents were demanded and the concerned respondent authority has not considered the same in the proper perspective and the documents were not supplied to enable the detenu to make an effective representation as envisaged under the law. ( 4 ) SECONDLY it is emphatically argued by Mr. Dave that in the representation certain specific documents were demanded and the concerned respondent authority has not considered the same in the proper perspective and the documents were not supplied to enable the detenu to make an effective representation as envisaged under the law. Out attention has been drawn to a judgment of the division Bench of this Court passed in Special Criminal Application No. 1633 of 1993 dated 36th July 1994 where this Court by relying upon the decision of another special Criminal Application No. 1164 of 1993, decided on 20th January 1994, and finding particularly similar facts situation, held inter alia that non-supply of material and documents would result in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22 (5) o the Constitution of India. The earlier Division Bench did not want to take any different view from the view taken in the decision of 20th January 1994. In this regard we observe clearly that this judgment does not become a stare decisis. Each and every case has to be considered on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. From time to time by judgment laws, the Preventive Detention Act is dealt with the case is decided. We have considered the facts of the present case in detail and in depth. We fid that similar situation has arisen that certain material documents which were sought for have not been supplied. Mr. K. V. Shelat, learned APP, in his usual fairness, submitted that in view of the earlier decision of this court and while the facts consistent therewith, there is no scope for departure and on that score and on this point alone the continued detention of the petitioner may not continue. ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing reasons the petition is accepted. Rule is made absolute. The order of continued detention is set aside and the petitioner should be set at liberty forthwith if he is not wanted in any other case. .