A. L. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) COMMISSIONER of Police, Rajkot city, Rajkot, passed an order on August 18, 1999, in exercise of powers under Sec. 3 (2) of the Gujarat prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 ("p. A. S. A. Act" for short), detaining the detenu under the provisions of the P. A. S. A. Act for a period of one year (Annexure : A) ( 2 ) THE grounds of detention of even date indicate that the detaining authority took into consideration one offence registered against the detenu under the bombay Prohibition Act. The detaining authority was satisfied that the detenu is a "bootlegger" and that his activities are detrimental to the public order. The detaining authority also considered the possibility of resorting to less drastic remedies and came to a conclusion that the powers under the P. A. S. A. Act are required to be exercised in order to immediately prevent the detenu from pursuing his illegal activities. The detaining authority also stated the previous involvement of the detenu in various offences, with a specific observation that their attempt to indicate antecedents of the detenu does not form part of the grounds of detention. The detenu was labelled as bootlegger and was ordered to be detained as his activities are found to be detrimental to public order and resorting to less drastic remedy was not possible to be resorted to as he was immediately required to be prevented from pursuing his activity ( 3 ) THE detenu has approached this Court with this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order of detention on various counts. However, the only ground that is advanced by Mr. Gondaliya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the detaining authority has, while passing the order, fixed the period of detention of one year which the detaining authority was not empowered to do, since the order of detention requires approval of the government and confirmation of the Advisory Board. Mr. Gondaliya, therefore, submitted that the detention is rendered vitiated and may be quashed and set aside in light of decision in the case of Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1952 SC 27 ( 4 ) MR. Mr. Gondaliya, therefore, submitted that the detention is rendered vitiated and may be quashed and set aside in light of decision in the case of Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1952 SC 27 ( 4 ) MR. K. T. DAVE, learned A. G. P. has opposed this petition ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner, assailing the order of detention, if the order of detention is perused, in the last para, it is categorically stated that the detaining authority detained the detenu for a period of one year in exercise of powers under Sec. 3 (1) of the P. A. S. A. Act. The question therefore, is whether the detention for specific period of one year by the detaining authority can be supported in law? ( 6 ) IF the scheme of the P. A. S. A. Act is seep, the order passed by the detaining authority is required to be approved by the State Government within 12 days, by virtue of provisions of Sec. 3 (3) of the P. A. S. A. Act. Section 11 provides that in every case, where a detention order has been made under the P. A. S. A. Act, the State Government shall, within three weeks from the date of. detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Sec. 10, the grounds for detention along with representation if any along with report of detaining authority if order is made by an authorised officer. Under Sec. 12, Advisory Board has to submit its report within 7 weeks of the date of detention of the detenu to the State Government, along with its opinion whether or not there is sufficient cause for detention. It is, therefore, clear from the scheme of the Act that the order passed by the detaining authority at the initial stage is not final. The order may be confirmed by the government or may not be confirmed by the government and the detaining authority therefore, cannot at the initial stage fix the period of detention as has been done by the detaining authority in the instant case. The Apex Court in the case of Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, (supra) has observed as under :"4. The Apex Court in the case of Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, (supra) has observed as under :"4. Whatever might be the position under the Act before its amendment in February 1951, it is clear that the Act as amended requires that very case of detention should be placed before an Advisory Board constituted under the act (S. 9) and provides that if the Board reports that there is sufficient cause for the detention "the appropriate Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit" (S. 11 ). It is, therefore, plain that it is only after the Advisory Board, to which the case has been referred, reports that the detention is justified, the government should determine what the period of detention should be and not before. The fixing of the period of detention in the initial order itself in the present case was therefore, contrary to the scheme of the Act and cannot be supported. "this decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, and therefore, the order in question cannot be supported ( 7 ) DIVISION Bench of this High Court in the case of Pravin Mahipatra Mehta and Anr. v. District Magistrate, Surendranagar and Ors. , reported in 1993 (1) GCD 671 (Guj.) also considered this very question and followed the decision of Makhan Singh Tarsikka (supra ). Division Bench of this Court also considered the decision in the case of Mrs. T. Devki and others v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1086 and the decision of Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Rajendra Mansukhlal Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay and Ors. , reported in 1989 Criminal Law Journal, 1741 and came to conclusion that where the detaining authority fixed the period of detention in the initial order of detention, the detaining authority usurped the power of the government and the Advisory Board as per the scheme mentioned in the provisions of the P. A. S. A. Act. Therefore, the detention order was contrary to the Art. 22 (4) of the Constitution of India and ultimately, the order of detention may be quashed. Therefore, the detention order was contrary to the Art. 22 (4) of the Constitution of India and ultimately, the order of detention may be quashed. ( 8 ) IN view of the above legal position as settled by various pronouncements of the Apex Court by a Bench of five Judges and Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside ( 9 ) THE present petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention passed on August 18, 1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenu- Mulubhai Bhikhubhai Chavda, is hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other matter. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs .