B. S. KAPADIA, R. D. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is filed by the detenu-Pankaj Kantilal Kharwa who is detained by detention order dated 12/03/1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police Surat City on his being satisfied under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 1985 (for short PASA ACT) with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area falling under the jurisdiction of the Athwa police station of Surat City that it was necessary to make an order detaining him and accordingly the order of detention is passed against the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was served with the said order on 1 3/03/1993 and on that very day he was also served with grounds of detention. On perusal of the grounds of detention it appears that he is detained on account of his activity as dangerous person. The Detaining Authority has relied on two criminal cases pending against him. One incident took place on 17. 10. 1991 and hence C. R. 466/1991 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 324 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offences under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act was registered against him. He was arrested on 10. 10. 1991 and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed against him on 16. 12. 1991 and that is pending for trial. The second incident took place on 3. 7. 1992 and on account of that incident C. R. No. 264/ 1992 is registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 323 327 A27 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In addition to the aforesaid materials there are also statements of four witnesses recorded by the police on 27/09/1992 24/11/199 2/12/1992 and on 13/02/1993. The first statement of the witness is in respect of the incident which took place on 27/09/1992 the second statement is in respect of the incident which took place on 24/11/1992; the third statement is in respect of the incident which took place on 4/12/1992 and the fourth statement is in respect of the incident which took place on 1 3/02/1993. The aforesaid statements have been verified by the Superior Officer namely the Superintendent of Police D Division Surat City on 7/03/1993 9 March 1993 10/03/1993 and the last also on 10/03/1993 respectively. ( 3 ) THE Detaining Authority. namely the Commissioner of Police Surat City has also considered the availability of less drastic remedy by considering that procedure under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code were taken against the petitioner which is pending and that action under Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act cannot be taken and that action under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act could not be taken while his detention was immediately necessary with a view to preventing him from the activities disturbing the public order. After considering the aforesaid materials the Detaining Authority was satisfied that he was Dangerous person within the meaning of the definition of Section 2 (c) of the PASA Act and that his activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that with a view to preventing him from continuing such activities it was necessary to detain him. ( 4 ) IN this petition several grounds have been raised. However Mr. C J Vin Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed the following grounds: (1) The first ground is in respect of representation. According to him the representation was made on 17/03/1993 and it was received on 20th April 1993 and it was rejected on 22/04/1993. He had produced the letter to show that the representation was received by them which was sent directly by the mother of the detenu by registered post which was received by the Authority on 20/04/1993 and it was rejected on 22/04/1993. When it is disposed of within two days there is no question of any delay and hence the contention on the point of delay in deposing the representation has no merits. It may be observed that the petitioner himself had made the representation on 17/03/1993 and given the same to the Jailor or the Jail Superintendent on the same day and there was no reason for any delay in despatching the same by the Jailor though there could have been possible postal delay. But in this case there is no definite evidence on the point as to when the representation dated 17/03/1993 was posted. But in this case there is no definite evidence on the point as to when the representation dated 17/03/1993 was posted. Therefore we have only to see the date on which it is received and the date of the reply to the representation which has been promptly considered and decided. Hence we reject this contention. (II) The second contention that is raised is with regard to the delay in making reference to the advisory Board in respect of the detention of the petitioner. Mr. D N Patel Ld. A. P. P. has placed on our hand the file which clearly discloses that the reference was made on 30/03/1993 and in view of the fact that the detention order is dated 12/03/1993 and it is served on 13/03/1993 it is made quite within the prescribed limit of three weeks from the date of detention as required under Section 11 of the PASA Act. Similarly from the file Mr. D N Patel the Ld. A. P. P. has pointed out that the opinion is given by the Advisory Board on 20/04/1993 and the same was received by the Government on 23/04/1993 When that is so that is also within seven weeks from the date of detention of the detenu and therefore also there is no substance in this contention. (III) The third contention which is raised is with regard to the statement given by the four witnesses as stated above. The statements have been verified on 7/03/1993; 9th March 1993; 10 March arch 1993 respectively. It is also clear from the file that the proposal made on 5/03/1993 is verified by the Superintendent of Police at the instance of the Detaining Authority and thereafter the Detaining Authority in the grounds for detention has rightly observed that the same has been got verified through Superintendent of Police of D Division of the Surat City. On these facts we do not find any substance on the point of verification. Hence this contention is also rejected. On these facts we do not find any substance on the point of verification. Hence this contention is also rejected. (IV) The next point which is urged is that in the C. R. s which are referred to in the grounds of detention and which are pending trial the petitioner-detenu has not been supplied the statements of the witnesses and therefore the petitioner is deprived of the opportunity of making proper and adequate representation and hence his fundamental rights under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India have been violated. In support of his submission he further submits that once the charge-sheet is filed in the statements there would be reference to witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet and the Detaining Authority has also considered the same. When that is so they are the relevant and vital material documents copies of which are necessary for the purpose of making proper representation. There is no denial of the fact that these statements are relevant and material documents and they would he the basic documents and there would be grounds and the grounds must be supplied to the detenu. The only contention raised on this point on behalf of the Ld. A. P. P. is that when the charge- sheet is already filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code copies thereof have already been supplied to the petitioner detenu and therefore it is not necessary to give them copies over again. For that purpose he has relied on an observation of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Wasi Uddin Ahmed v. District Magistrate Aligarh reported in A. I. R. 1981 SC 2166 (Para 19 on p. 2174 ). ( 5 ) MR. C J Vin Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this very Judgment was considered by Honble Mr. Justice K. G. Shah in Special Criminal Application No. 253/ 1993 which is decided on 3/4. 8. 1993 in a Division Bench (Coram: K. G. Shah and K. R. Vyas JJ. ). On perusal of the judgment it is clear that K. G. Shah J. has relied on para 15 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. However though the contention was raised by Mr. D N Patel Ld. 8. 1993 in a Division Bench (Coram: K. G. Shah and K. R. Vyas JJ. ). On perusal of the judgment it is clear that K. G. Shah J. has relied on para 15 of the judgment of the Supreme Court. However though the contention was raised by Mr. D N Patel Ld. A. P. P. before K. G. Shah J. that it was not necessary to supply over again the statements which are already supplied to the petitioner-detenu when the charge-sheet was filed and that aspect has not been dealt with though in the case of Wasi Uddin Ahmed (supra) the said aspect has been properly dealt with in para 19. In that view of the matter Mr. D N Patel Ld. A. P. P. has further pointed out a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court where the judgment of the Division Bench (supra) has already been considered by the Division Bench (Coram: S D Shah and R D Vyas. JJ.) in Special Criminal Application No. 1776/1992. S. D. Shah speaking for the Bench has considered the aforesaid judgment delivered by K G Shah J. and observed as under :the exercise undertaken by the Division Bench in our opinion with the utmost respect in the judges of the Division Bench is not a permissible exercise as that renders law declared in para 19 of the report meaningless. In para 19 of the report the Supreme Court has answered the specific contention of the detenu as to where non-supply of FIR and documents annexed thereto would vitiate the order of detention. The court has on fasts found that they were the documents relied upon by the authority. Ordinarily therefore there was obligation on the authority to supply copies of those documents to the detenu as per general statement of law contained in para 15 of the report. However in context of FIR and documents annexed thereto the Supreme Court in para 19 of the report found that there was no need and obligation to supply copies of FIR and documents annexed therto as they are already supplied to the accused under Section 173 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the detenu was already supplied documents as accused person under Section 173 (5) it was not necessary to supply the same. Since the detenu was already supplied documents as accused person under Section 173 (5) it was not necessary to supply the same. Further it has been observed by S. D. Shah speaking for the Bench as under:we therefore do not agree with the aforesaid view of the Division Bench. To our mind law is clearly declared by the Supreme Court in Wasi Uddin Ahmeds case (supra) and since we are following the decision of the Supreme Courts it is not necessary for us to refer the matter to the larger Bench. ( 6 ) FROM the above decisions it is clear that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Wasi Uddin Ahmeds case holds grounds and the same is binding by Article (4) of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter we follow the said judgment and hold that as no grievance can be made in the present case that copies of the statement which have not been supplied as at the time of filing of chargesheet they are already supplied. Hence it is not necessary to give the copies of the said statements over again. In that view of the matter we do not see any substance in the contention that non-supply of the copies of the statements to the petitioner in the aforesaid two Criminal Cases pending trial. would any way voltaic the order and/or hold the detention illegal. No other grounds are urged and none of the contentions raised before us succeeds. Hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 7 ) LASTLY when we are on the verge of completing the dictation of this Judgment Mr. C J Vin Ld. Counsel for the petitioner states that in this case the detention of the petitioner is from 13/03/1993 and today it is 12/01/1994 so practically more than 10 months have passed and he therefore requests that for two months the period of detention should he quashed and/or revoked. Unless there is any error either of applying the mind to the relevant facts by the Detaining Authority or non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority to the particular material aspect of the case or it any constitutional mandate is not complied with certainly this Court while exercising its powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India would have right to quash the order of detention. But no powers for revocation are given to the Court. That powers are with the State Government as provided in the Act. It is therefore for the petitioner to make an application for revocation of the order and it any such application is made the State Government would consider the same taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly the petition fails and is disposed of as dismissed. Rule is discharged. (JBP) rule discharged. .