D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. This petition challenging the detention order dated 1-9-2005 under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981,is filed by the father of the detenu. Name of the detenu is Sandeep Haripal Lahot. 3. In the petition number of grounds have been raised challenging the detention order. But Mr. Tripathi, raised only one contention, before us, and, that is, ground No.(g). It is stated in the ground that the grounds of detention were served upon him, the detenu was made aware of his right to make representation to the Detaining Authority, State Government and Advisory Board, but the detenu was not made aware of his right to produce witnesses and examine them before the Advisory Board, and, therefore, he could not exercise that valuable right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Ground (h) is related to this aspect only. Therein it is stated that communication in this regard dated 14-9-2005 was served upon the detenu on 21-9-2005 at 8.30 a.m. before the Jailor, Mumbai Central Prison, informing the detenu that the meeting of the Advisory Board is fixed on 219-2005. Then the detenu was brought before the Advisory Board on 10 a.m. on the same day, and, therefore, the time available to him was only one and half hours. 4. Mr. Tripathi produced before us the original letter received by the detenu from the Government of Maharashtra, Advisory Board dated 14-9-2005. There is an endorsement about the receipt of this letter by the detenu and he has below his signature put the time as 8.30 a.m. The learned APP does not dispute that this letter was served upon the detenu at 8.30 a.m. In the said letter the detenu has been told that he can take assistance of his friend who is not a legal practitioner or examine witnesses and keep him or them present at the time of his interview before the Advisory Board. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Tripathi, contended that this right given to the detenu to get represented through the friend who is not a legal practitioner and to keep his witnesses present, is a valuable right, but service of notice in that regard at 8.30 a.m. and asking him to decide all these important and vital questions within one hour, was a futile exercise, and, therefore, continued detention of the detenu, is wrong. 6. Mr. Tripathi relied upon the two judgments in this regard. First judgment is reported in 1982 Cri.L.J. 340 in three Writ Petitions No.5724, 5874 and 5433 of 1980, A. K. Roy, Commissioner Vs. Union of India and Anr. and Than Singh Tyagi Vs. Union of India and Anr. and Dr. Vasant Kumar Pandit Vs. Union of India. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1989)1 SCC 193 , State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Balajangam Subbarajamma. 7. Learned APP tried to contend that the time given was sufficient for the detenu to make up his mind whether he wants to be represented or whether he wants to examine witnesses before the Advisory Board. He also contended that if at all the detenu wanted to be represented through a friend who is not a legal practitioner or wanted to examine witnesses, he could have asked for adjournment, but nothing has been done by the detenu in that regard. The learned APP also showed his willingness to show, to us, the original record and proceedings before the Advisory Board. 8. In the Supreme Court Judgment, referred to above, the Supreme Court has laid down certain safeguards in this regard, in paragraph 11. Paragraph 11 reads as under : "11. These are the two important constitutional safeguards. The Advisory Board is a constitutional imperative. It has an important function to perform. It has to form an opinion whether there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned. There is no particular procedure prescribed for the Advisory Board since there is no lis to be adjudicated. Section 11 of the Act provides only the broad guidelines for observance. The Advisory Board however, may adopt any procedure depending upon varying circumstances. But any procedure that it adopts must satisfy the procedural fairness. There is no particular procedure prescribed for the Advisory Board since there is no lis to be adjudicated. Section 11 of the Act provides only the broad guidelines for observance. The Advisory Board however, may adopt any procedure depending upon varying circumstances. But any procedure that it adopts must satisfy the procedural fairness. We need not deal with this aspect in detail since the Advisory Board consists of persons who are, or have been or are qualified to be appointed as judges of a High Court. They are men of wisdom and learning. Their report as envisaged under Section 11 (2) of the Act should provide specifically in a separate part whereof as to "whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned". That opinion as to sufficient cause is required to be reached with equal opportunity to the State as well as the person concerned, no matter what the procedure. It is important for laws and authorities not only to be just but also appear to be just. Therefore, the action that gives the appearance of unequal treatment or unreasonableness - whether or not there is any substance in it - should be avoided by Advisory Board. We consider that it must be stated and stated clearly and unequivocally that it is the duty of the Advisory Board to see to that the case of detenu is not adversely affected by the procedure it adopts. It must be ensured that the detenu is not handicapped by the unequal representation or refusal of access to a friend to represent his case." 9. Similarly, in judgment reported in 1982 Cri.L.J. 340, paragraph 105 was brought to our notice. Paragraph 105, reads as under: "105. The last of the three rights for which Shri. Jethmalani contends is the right of the detenu to lead evidence in rebuttal before the Advisory Board. We do not see any objection to this right being granted to the detenu. Neither the Constitution nor the National Security Act contains any provision denying to the detenu the right to present his own evidence in rebuttal of the allegations made against him. The detenu may therefore offer oral and documentary evidence before the Advisory Board in order to rebut the allegations which are made against him. Neither the Constitution nor the National Security Act contains any provision denying to the detenu the right to present his own evidence in rebuttal of the allegations made against him. The detenu may therefore offer oral and documentary evidence before the Advisory Board in order to rebut the allegations which are made against him. We would only like to add that if the detenu desires to examine any witnesses, he shall have to keep them present at the appointed time and no obligation can be cast on the Advisory Board to summon them. The Advisory Board, like any other tribunal, is free to regulate its own procedure within the constraints of the Constitution and the statute. It would be open to it, in the exercise of that power to limit the time within which the detenu must complete his evidence. We consider it necessary to make this observation particularly in view of the fact that the Advisory Board is under an obligation under Section 11 (1) of the Act to submit its report to the appropriate Government within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. The proceedings before the Advisory Board have therefore to be completed with the utmost expedition." From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the right so given to the detenu is vital and important right. Serving notice at 8.30 a.m. and calling upon the detenu to decide whether he wants to be represented through a friend who is not a legal practitioner or whether he wants to examine witnesses and keep those witnesses ready, within one hour, was not at all a full, sufficient and proper opportunity to the detenu. Therefore, this contention of Mr. Tripathi is required to be accepted, and the petition is required to be allowed. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. Detenu be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Petition allowed.