JUDGMENT : 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State of Gujarat, we find from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, in particular, paragraph 5 thereof where the statistical information is given that there was no review under -taken between 30.10.94 and 28.8.95 and we do not know the reason therefor. The counsel for the State of Gujarat will clarify this position. Counsel will also clarify or place before us the guidelines on which the Review Committee is reviewing cases. 2. On behalf of the Union of India the Under Secretary in the Home Department has filed an affidavit annexing therewith two statements, the first showing the position of the TADA cases reviewed by the State Review Committee and the second showing the number of live cases under TADA and the total number of persons under detention in those cases. So far as the first statement is concerned, Column 3 gives the total number of cases reviewed and either cancelled/withdrawn/filed or TADA provisions having been dropped and the Column 4 shows the total number of persons discharged from TADA provisions. The second table shows the State-wise position in regard to cases live, that is, under investigation or pending trial, the total number of persons involved under actual detention and the total number of enlarged on bail as well as those absconding. From these figures it would appear that in 14446 such cases involving 42488 persons, 30357 are enlarged on bail while 5998 are in custody with 6044 absconding. The grievance of counsel for the petitioner, however, that in the affidavit there is no disclosure on how many occasions the Review Committee met, the frequency of their meeting and the categorisation of cases dealt with by the Review Committee. Mr. Gupta contended that in Cr. M.P. No. 4754/95 there was an averment to the effect that in regard to CBI cases the Review Committee decided to retain the provisions of TADA in all CBI cases, which means that CBI cases were placed beyond review. The learned A.S.G. may clarify the position whether CBI cases were actually reviewed or a decision was taken that they need not be reviewed. The position may be made clear by the State of Gujarat and Union of India within four weeks from today. 3. The learned A.S.G. may clarify the position whether CBI cases were actually reviewed or a decision was taken that they need not be reviewed. The position may be made clear by the State of Gujarat and Union of India within four weeks from today. 3. So far as the State of Rajasthan is concerned, it has not filed the affidavit thus far and Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta seeks time to do so. Having regard to the passage of time, we would like to impress upon the State Government to file its response before the next date of hearing. The Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in the Home Department will be responsible to ensure that the response in filed and complete in all respects so that it does not become necessary to adjourn the matter on account of incomplete information of the response. A copy of this order will go to the Secretary in the Home Department of the State of Rajasthan for compliance. 4. Let the matter come up after four weeks.