JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:--- Through this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is the wife of the detenu Manohar Krishna Madhavi @ Manya @ M.K., has impugned the detention order dated 30th March, 1998 passed by the First Respondent-Mr. O.P. Bali Commissioner of Police, Thane, detaining the detenu under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. The detention order dated 30th March, 1998 along with the grounds of detention bearing the same date (30th March 1998) was served on the detenu on 30th March, 1998. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the detenu contained in the grounds of detention because, their recitation is not necessary to adjudicate upon the solitary contention of the petitioner's Counsel contained in ground 5(g) to the effect that on account of the wrong address of the Chairman, Advisory Board furnished to the detenu, the representation dated 4th April 1998 sent by the petitioner to the Advisory Board did not reach the Advisory Board before 24th April, 1998 on which date the Advisory Board met and considered the case of the detenu and therefore, the detention of the detenu was rendered bad-in-law. 3. It is pertinent to mention that in para 9 of the grounds of detention, it has been mentioned that the detenu if he so wished, could make a representation to the Advisory Board against the detention order and address it to the Chairman, Advisory Board C/o Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Mumbai 400 032. 4. For a satisfactory adjudication on ground No. 5(g) it was necessary for the petitioner to implead the Advisory Board, through its Secretary, as a respondent in this petition but, this the petitioner did not do. Hence, we are bereft of the advantage of a return from the Secretary, Advisory Board. Although two returns have been filed namely those of the detaining authority (respondent No. 1 ) and Mr. Hence, we are bereft of the advantage of a return from the Secretary, Advisory Board. Although two returns have been filed namely those of the detaining authority (respondent No. 1 ) and Mr. V.B. Sankhe, an Officer of the State Government (respondent No. 2) but, in the former it is alleged that the return of the State Government may be perused and in the latter, it is mentioned that it has not reached the State Government though, the detenu's representation dated 21st April, 1998, about which no grievance has been made in the petition has reached it. 5. During the course of hearing of the petition, on our querry, learned Counsel for the petitioner showed us the A.D. receipt pertaining to the petitioner's representation. From its perusal, we find that the address on it was not Chairman, Advisory Board C/o Registrar--------------------------------- as it should have been in view of para 9 of the grounds of detention but, it was addressed to the Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Mumbai-400 032. A perusal of the A.D. receipt also shows that the date of acknowledgement by the Nazir of the Registrar was 20th April, 1993. A perusal of the A.D. receipt would show that there was nothing to indicate that the letter sent by the petitioner to the Registrar pertained to a preventive detention matter . In such a situation, there was every likelihood of the office of the Registrar thinking it to be a routine letter and not forwarding it forthwith to the Chairman, Advisory Board. It should be borne in mind that the meeting of the Advisory Board took place on 24th April, 1998 i.e. four days after the said representation was received in the Registrar's Office. In such a situation, it was the petitioner to blame if the representation could not be placed before the Advisory Board on 24th April, 1998. It is true that the actual representation was addressed to the Hon'ble Advisory Board C/o Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Mumbai - 400 032 but, the Registrar and members of his staff could not be fastened with such a knowledge for it must have been enclosed in an envelope. 6. Mr. It is true that the actual representation was addressed to the Hon'ble Advisory Board C/o Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Mumbai - 400 032 but, the Registrar and members of his staff could not be fastened with such a knowledge for it must have been enclosed in an envelope. 6. Mr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner also emphatically urged that on 30th March, 1998 when the grounds of detention were formulated, Office of the Chairman, Advisory Board was in Mantralaya and not in the premises of the High Court. He urged that on account of wrong address of the Chairman of the Advisory Board mentioned in para 9 of the grounds of detention, representation of the detenu addressed to the Chairman, Advisory Board, could not be considered by the Advisory Board on 24th April 1998. Since in the petition, it was not pleaded that the Office of the Chairman, Advisory Board was in Mantralaya on 30th March, 1998, we felt that the submission of Mr. Tripathi could be adjudicated upon only after knowing whether on the said date, Office of the Chairman, Advisory Board was at Mantralaya, as urged by him. Consequently, we directed Mr. S.G. Deshmukh learned Counsel for the respondents to find out:- (1) Whether Office of the Chairman, Advisory Board was at Mantralaya? (2) If it was at Mantralaya, then on what date it was shifted from the High Court to Mantralaya because, even according to Mr. Tripathi originally it was in the High Court premises. In furtherance of our direction, Mr. Deshmukh supplied the following information:- (1) Till 31st October, 1996, office of both Secretary and Chairman of Advisory Board was in High Court premises. (2) On 1st November, 1996 Office of the Secretary, Advisory Board was shifted to Mantralaya, Mumbai. (3) Office of the Chairman, Advisory Board has always been in High Court, was never shifted to Mantralaya at any point of time: and is still in the High Court. 7. Since Office of the Chairman, Advisory Board has always been on the address mentioned in para 9 of the grounds of detention, it was mistake on the part of the petitioner not to have addressed the representation of the detenu to the Chairman, Advisory Board C/o Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Mumbai 400 032. 7. Since Office of the Chairman, Advisory Board has always been on the address mentioned in para 9 of the grounds of detention, it was mistake on the part of the petitioner not to have addressed the representation of the detenu to the Chairman, Advisory Board C/o Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, Mumbai 400 032. If on account of the mistake committed by the petitioner, the representation of the detenu made to the Chairman, Advisory Board was not considered by the Advisory Board on 24th April 1998, it is the petitioner who is to blame squarely. It is a trite that law does not allow a person to take advantage of his/her own wrong. 8. Since this solitary ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of substance, this petitions has to fail. But, before we proceed to the operative part of the order, we cannot restrain ourselves from expressing our indignation on the mis-leading manner in which the representation has been addressed by the petitioner. Mr. Tripathi tried to defend the petitioner by urging that she is a lay person and did not know the niceties and intracies involved. We are sceptical about this claim of Mr. Tripathi because, after going through the said representation we have our grave doubts whether it was really drafted by her. In our view, the averments contained in it would provoke the envy of a legal mind. 9. For the said reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. *****