ORDER WP (HC) No. 64 of 2006 1. Petitioner Chandrahas in WP (HC) No. 64 of 2006 is seeking a writ in the nature of declaration declaring the detention of one Narasimha son of Rangappa by order dated 3.6.2006 in No. Mag(1)CR/58/2005-06 passed by the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District and the order of detention in Kannada dated 3.6.2006 bearing No. Mag(1)CR/2005-06 as illegal and void ab initio. 2. Petitioner Chandrahas is the brother of Narasimha son of Rangappa, the detenu. Detenu is detained in Central Prison, Gulbarga pursuant to an order of detention purported to have been passed by the District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (for short, 'Goondas Act'). Order of detention issued in Kannada is filed at Annexure-B to the petition. According to the petitioner, grounds of detention were furnished both in Kannada and English in terms of Annexures C and D. He would say that the detenu was furnished with relied upon documents in a spiral bound book of 127 pages. Order of detention is passed under Section 3 of the Goonda Act and the same requires to be approved by the second respondent. Approval order is not passed according to the petitioner. Petitioner in the grounds would say that the first respondent is a person empowered to exercise powers under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act. He would further say that his order is required to be approved by the second respondent within 12 days. Approval order was neither issued nor was it served on the detenu. It is further stated that two orders were issued, one in English and another in Kannada. Two orders could not have been issued by the Government. This has created confusion in the mind of the detenu. It is contrary to Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act and is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, two orders do not say that one is translation of the other. The index to the compilation of the document furnished also refer to the existence of two orders of detention. Detenu has a right to make an effective representation and that right is rendered impossible on the facts of this case. According to the petitioner, two orders do not say that one is translation of the other. The index to the compilation of the document furnished also refer to the existence of two orders of detention. Detenu has a right to make an effective representation and that right is rendered impossible on the facts of this case. Petitioner also says that there are violations of not only under Article 22 of the Constitution but also the statutory provisions of Goonda Act. 3. According to the petitioner, order of detention is also vitiated for the reason that the bail application and the detailed order granting bail in various cases relied upon which was required to have been necessarily placed and considered by the Detaining Authority has not been so done. Failure to place those materials before the detaining authority and failure to consider the same would render the order of detention unconstitutional in addition to being illegal. Petitioner in these circumstances seeks for a writ in the nature of declaration. 4. On receipt of notice, statement of objections is filed by the Government. In the statement of objections, it is stated that the detenu has involved in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; and that he was creating chaos in the society. The detaining authority passed an order of detention on the basis of report submitted by the Superintendent of Police on 5.5.2006. The said report would indicate that the detenu started his career as Matka Chit Writer and became a full-fledged Matka Bookie and organised Matka Gambling in the city. 11 cases of organised Matka gambling were registered against the detenu and in some cases he has pleaded guilty before courts. Despite several cases registered against him, he never stopped illegal activities in the matter. He was getting bail from courts. In order to protect law and order in the society, application of mind to the report of the Superintendent of Police, and after deriving subjective satisfaction, the detaining authority has passed orders under the Goonda Act. It is further stated that originally the order of detention was passed in English and it was translated in Kannada, the language known to the detenu. Same was served on the detenu. Order of detention was sent to the Advisory Board for approval. The Advisory Board, after enquiry, has confirmed the order of detention. It is further stated that originally the order of detention was passed in English and it was translated in Kannada, the language known to the detenu. Same was served on the detenu. Order of detention was sent to the Advisory Board for approval. The Advisory Board, after enquiry, has confirmed the order of detention. It is also stated in the statement of objections that the detaining authority is empowered to pass the impugned order under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act. It is stated that the contention of the petitioner that the order of detention was required to be approved by the State Government within 12 days is false and incorrect. It is denied that the detaining authority has no power to detain the detenu for a period of three months. Proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act provides that the period specified in the order made under this sub-section shall not exceed three months in the first instance and more so, if satisfied and if necessary, the State Government may be extend the such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. The order of detention is subsequently approved by the Government. 5. We have heard the petition in part on 12.12.2006. We noticed in our order of 12.10.2006 that the detention order is dated 3.6.2006; that the detention order requires approval by the Government within 12 days in terms of Section 3(3) of the Goonda Act; and that the statement of objections was vague. On that day, we saw the original records. We saw that several communications were issued by the Under Secretary, Home Department. In every communication, it was mentioned that the order dated 22.6.2006 was issued by the Government approving the detention order. Learned State Public Prosecutor had stated that the detention order was approved on 13.6.2006. Noticing vagueness and noticing inadequate material, we directed the Government to file an affidavit clarifying the correct date of approval. Time was sought for. Time was granted on 18.10.2006, 25.10.2006 and on 3.11.2006. On 7.11.2006, we noticed the affidavits filed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has stated that the Home Department in the State of Karnataka have confirmed the order of detention on 22.6.2006 issued by the District Magistrate. Approval order prima facie would be on 22.6.2006. Time was sought for. Time was granted on 18.10.2006, 25.10.2006 and on 3.11.2006. On 7.11.2006, we noticed the affidavits filed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has stated that the Home Department in the State of Karnataka have confirmed the order of detention on 22.6.2006 issued by the District Magistrate. Approval order prima facie would be on 22.6.2006. In the light of the affidavit, we noticed the communication dated 22.6.2006 initialled by Sri R.A. Kulkarni. It refers to an order dated 22.6.2006 approving the detention of the detenu. Noticing the confused state affairs, we directed the Under Secretary to be present with an affidavit explaining the matter. WP (HC) No. 65 of 2006 6. In this petition one Jagadish is seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the detention of Sri Soma Alias Somashekara son of Rudrappa as per the detention order dated 3.6.2006 (Annexure-A) and the order of detention in Kannada at Annexure-B dated 3.6.2006 as illegal and void ab initio. 7. Petitioner is the father in-law of the detenu Soma Alias Somashekara son of Rudrappa. Order of detention was passed on 3.6.2000. Kannada order is at Annexure-B. Grounds of detention were served on the detenu. Grounds of detention in English is at Annexure-C and in Kannada at Annexure-D. Detenu was furnished with the relied upon documents in a spiral bound book of 119 pages. Grounds raised in this petition are same or similar as in the connected case WP (HC) No. 64 of 2006. 8. On receipt of notice, State has entered appearance. State has filed a statement of objections. In the statement of objections, it is stated that the Deputy Commissioner has issued the order of detention against the detenu in the light of his indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order. The detenu is a Matka Operator. He was a Matka Chit Writer and a Matka Bookie. He started organising Matka gambling with assistance of his employees. 11 cases have been registered against him. He pleaded guilty. Despite registration of several cases against him, he did not stop his illegal activities. It is further stated that the detenu is used to get bail from courts after arrest; and that he used to dodge the authorities and the court of law by not appearing before courts. It is further stated that the detention order was passed on 3.6.2006. Despite registration of several cases against him, he did not stop his illegal activities. It is further stated that the detenu is used to get bail from courts after arrest; and that he used to dodge the authorities and the court of law by not appearing before courts. It is further stated that the detention order was passed on 3.6.2006. Same was served on the detenu. On 13.6.2006 the Government has passed an order of detention for a period of three months. The said order was passed within 12 days from the date of passing of the first order of detention. The order of detention was placed before the Advisory Board. Advisory Board has accepted the action of the Government. Thereafter, another order was passed on 25.7.2006 ordering detention for a period of 12 months. It is also stated that the first order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Goonda Act and the same was confirmed by the second respondent under Section 3(2) of the Goonda Act for a period of three months. 9. On 7.11.2006, we noticed from the original file a draft order initialled by Sri R.A. Kulkarni. It is signed by him. We saw a communication dated 22.6.2006 addressed to the Advisory Board referring the order dated 22.6.2006. The order dated 22.6.2006 was not readily available in the file placed before us. We therefore directed the Under Secretary to be present with affidavit explaining the details of dates in the matter. On 10.11.2006, the Under Secretary was present. He had stated that the approval order was passed under Section 3(3) of the Goonda Act on 13.3.2006; and that the approval order dated 22.6.2006 has arisen on account of typographical error in the proceedings. We also saw the detention file of Narasimha son of Rangappa. There was reference to Narasimha in the first sheet of the file, and in the second sheet there is a mention of Soma Alias Somashekar typed in Kannada. The words 'Sri Soma @ Somashekar' were struck off, and in their place the name of Narasimha was written. We also did see from the file that at page-2 the figure 461 was altered as 462. We also saw that the order dated 3.6.2006 was approved by the Chief Minister on 6.6.2006. File was received on 13.2006. Approval was granted on 13.6.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu by speed post. We also did see from the file that at page-2 the figure 461 was altered as 462. We also saw that the order dated 3.6.2006 was approved by the Chief Minister on 6.6.2006. File was received on 13.2006. Approval was granted on 13.6.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu by speed post. The Under Secretary would say that a typographical mistake has occurred with regard to the order dated 22.6.2006. We in those circumstances directed Sri Kulkarni to place further materials. He has also filed affidavit and photocopies of postal receipts. WP (HC) No. 40 of 2006 10. This petition is filed by Smt. Farida wife of Istiaq Ahmed seeking a writ of declaration declaring the detention of Sri Istiaq @ Istiaq Ahmed in terms the order dated 2.5.2006 at Annexure-A and the Kannada order dated 2.5.2006 at Annexure-B, confirmed by order dated 10.5.2006 at Annexure-E, as illegal and void ab initio. 11. Petitioner is the wife and she has filed this petition challenging the order of detention of her husband. According to her, detenu is detained in Central Jail, Bangalore in terms of order of detention at Annexure-A. She has filed Kannada order at Annexure-B. Grounds of detention in English and Kannada are at Annexures C and D. Grounds in this case also are same or similar as in the connected cases referred to above. 12. On receipt of notice, State has justified its action by contending that the detaining authority has passed order of detention by carefully examining the material pertaining to criminal activities of the detenu and after applying its independent mind. Kannada order is the original order. Translation is in English. It is further stated that Section 3 provides for detention for a period of three months. It is also stated that the detenu has committed several criminal acts resulting in registering several cases as against him. It is also stated that copies of earlier order of detention, grounds of detention, copy of the earlier writ petition and the order of this Court passed in the said writ petition were supplied to the detenu. Detention order was passed only on the basis of fresh criminal records. It is further stated that the Advisory Board has upheld the order of detention. 13. We have heard the matter on 28.9.2006. We saw original file. From the original file, we saw the order dated 10.5.2006. Detention order was passed only on the basis of fresh criminal records. It is further stated that the Advisory Board has upheld the order of detention. 13. We have heard the matter on 28.9.2006. We saw original file. From the original file, we saw the order dated 10.5.2006. In the Advisory Board records, it was seen that the very order was dated 22.5.2006. The order dated 22.5.2006 is said to be the order of approval by the Government. Order dated 23.6.2006 is said to have been passed confirming the order dated 2.5.2006. After noticing the discrepancies, we sought for affidavits from the Commissioner and also from the Under Secretary. Additional affidavits were also filed by the Commissioner of Police and the Under Secretary. Government sought for filing of additional affidavits. Additional affidavit was filed. It is stated in the affidavits that the dates 10.5.2006 and 22.5.2006 found in the proceedings is in no way concerned with the detention of Istiaq Ahmed passed by the Government. It is further stated in the counter filed by the Government that the Commissioner of Police has issued an order of detention on 2.5.2006 and the same was served on 3.5.2006. Another detention order was passed on 10.5.2006 by the Government and it was served on 15.5.2006. The Government after receiving opinion of the Advisory Board confirmed the order of detention on 23.6.2006. WP (HC) No. 72 of 2006: 14. In this petition Smt. Shanti wife of Vijaya Kumar is challenging the order of detention dated 25.5.2006 at Annexure-A and the Kannada order dated 25.5.2006 at Annexure-B in the case on hand. Petitioner is the wife of the detenu. According to the petitioner, detenu was supplied with Annexure-A, an order in English, and Annexure-B, an order in Kannada. Grounds of detention were furnished to the detenu in English and Kannada, which are at Annexures C and D. Order was passed under the Goonda Act. Petitioner has raised same or similar grounds as in the connected writ petitions. 15. On receipt of notice, State Government has stated that the order of detention was passed on 4.4.2006. Detenu is detained in Bellary Central Jail. Advisory Board submitted its opinion, and, in the light of the opinion of the Advisory Board, detention order was confirmed by the Government. 15. On receipt of notice, State Government has stated that the order of detention was passed on 4.4.2006. Detenu is detained in Bellary Central Jail. Advisory Board submitted its opinion, and, in the light of the opinion of the Advisory Board, detention order was confirmed by the Government. According to the State, the detenu is a rowdy sheeter involved in number of criminal cases and that he is an habitual offender. Despite several punitive measures he has not chosen to improve himself on account of his influence, money and muscle powers. In the light of failure of the punitive measures as against the detenu, detention was resorted to by the Government. Government also says that the Government has approved the order of detention on 2.6.2006 and not on 14.6.2006 as averred by the petitioner. 16. In this case also, we have noticed affidavit of the Commissioner of Police. In the affidavit it is stated that the order was approved on 2.6.2006 and not on 14.6.2006. We saw the original in the light of the affidavit. Order dated 2.5.2006 is signed by the Under Secretary to Government, Home Department. From the original file, we see another Government order dated 14.6.2006. That order was addressed to the Chairman of the Advisory Board. There is a reference of approval order dated 14.6.2006. That order was not available in the file. Hence, we directed the Commissioner and the Under Secretary to file additional affidavits. Additional affidavits were filed. 17. Thereafter, on 16.11.2006 we saw from the original file that approval was granted on 30.5.2006. We also saw a copy of the order signed by then Under Secretary mentioning about the approval on 2.5.2006. In the affidavit Sri R.A. Kulkarni, the then Under Secretary would state that confirmation of the detention order was communicated to the detenu on 3.6.2006. On 16.11.2006, Senior Superintendent of Prison, Bellary was present before Court. From the original filed maintained by the said Senior Superintendent of Prison we saw the order and that order dated NIL. It refers to the approval of the order dated 25.5.2006. It was served on 3.6.2006. We wanted an affidavit of the Commissioner in the matter. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed, and, in the affidavit, it is stated that the detention order was passed by the Commissioner and it was approved within 12 days i.e. 2.6.2006. 18. It refers to the approval of the order dated 25.5.2006. It was served on 3.6.2006. We wanted an affidavit of the Commissioner in the matter. Thereafter, an affidavit was filed, and, in the affidavit, it is stated that the detention order was passed by the Commissioner and it was approved within 12 days i.e. 2.6.2006. 18. Sri Kiran Javali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases would reiterate the facts and grounds raised in the petitions. He would argue that there exists two orders and that law do not provide for two orders. Even otherwise, he would say that there are several statutory violations resulting in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel elaborates by saying that there is no satisfaction as expected in terms of Section 3 of the Goonda Act. He would ultimately conclude by saying that in each one these cases, the authorities themselves have fixed the term of detention, which is not available to them in law. He strongly relies on Section 3 of the Goonda Act itself in this regard. 19. Per contra, Sri Doreraju, learned State Public Prosecutor would support every one of the orders. He would explain to us the reasons for detention in the given circumstances. He would take us through the material on record in the light of original proceedings to say that the statutory provisions are complied with by the authorities. In so far as Section 3 of the Goonda Act is concerned, he would say that Section 3(2) comes to his rescue. 20. After hearing, we have carefully perused the material on record. 21. Before we touch upon the merits of the matter, we deem it proper to say that the Goonda Act is brought into force with a laudable object of preventive detention of bootleggers, drug offenders, gamblers, goondas, immoral traffic offenders and slum-grabbers for preventing their dangerous activities prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Each one of them are nuisance to the society and each one of them is a destructive element in their own field. Their illegal acts would be prejudicial to maintenance of public order. With this laudable object, preventive detention is made available in terms of the Goonda Act. Each one of them are nuisance to the society and each one of them is a destructive element in their own field. Their illegal acts would be prejudicial to maintenance of public order. With this laudable object, preventive detention is made available in terms of the Goonda Act. From the Goonda Act, we see that detention is possible or permissible without trial in the light of the powers vested with the authorities in terms of Section 3 of the Goonda Act. It is needless to say that in a democratic set up of our country, 'liberty' plays a vital role. Liberty includes 'free movement' in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution. That liberty is arrested in view of the said criminal acts. State therefore has to be careful in evaluating the material on record for the purpose of detention in terms of the powers conferred on the authorities. Matter is serious on the one hand, and, liberty of the citizen was involved on the other hand. Public order is thus involved. Government has to taken into consideration the activities of such criminals and satisfy themselves with regard to detention of individual on the basis of prejudicial activities affecting public order. 22. In the case on hand, original files were made available. We are sorry to notice the way in which each one of the files are maintained by the authorities as it would show that serious attention is not given by those who are entrusted with the task of detention in terms of the statute. We have seen several omissions and commissions in terms of our earlier discussion. 23. In WP (HC) No. 72 of 2006, we saw from the original file that order dated 2.5.2006 is corrected as 2.6.2006 approving the detention order dated 25.5.2006. We saw another order dated 14.6.2006. We sought for the affidavit. Affidavit was filed by the Under Secretary. He would say that while issuing a letter for sending documents date of the order was wrongly mentioned as 14.6.2006, which occurred while taking out computer print out. In that case itself, another affidavit is filed by the then Commissioner of Police who would say that approval was granted on 2.6.2006. Sri Veerabhadra Swamy, Senior Superintendent of Prison, in terms of the original file would say that the approval was granted on 25.5.2006. In that case itself, another affidavit is filed by the then Commissioner of Police who would say that approval was granted on 2.6.2006. Sri Veerabhadra Swamy, Senior Superintendent of Prison, in terms of the original file would say that the approval was granted on 25.5.2006. All these would show that sufficient attention is not paid by those who are in charge of this matter, as we see from the records. 24. WP (HC) No. 64 of 2006: In this case, we again saw that detention order was dated 3.6.2006. The Deputy Commissioner would say-that 12 days time is false and incorrect. In the original file there is a mention of the order dated 22.6.2006. Noticing all this, we sought for affidavits. From the affidavits made available to us, we see that the Deputy Commissioner would say that the State Government has confirmed the order of detention dated 22.6.2006. However, the Under Secretary would say that it was approved on 13.6.2006 and a mistake was committed in saying that the detention order was approved on 22.6.2006. In the original file, we also saw in page-2 of the note-sheet the name of one Soma, which later on was written off as Narasimha. 25. WP No. 40 of 2006: We again see several discrepancies. The detention is order dated 2.6.2006. Approval order is dated 10.5.2006. But from the Advisory Board records, it is seen that approval order is dated 22.5.2006. We therefore wanted affidavits. Subsequently, affidavits were filed. In the affidavit, Sri R. Nissar Ahmed would say that though the letter was dated 26.4.2006, it was signed on 2.5.2006. It was confirmed on 10.5.2006 and was served on the detenu on 15.5.2006. Draft of the detention order was prepared on different dates. For all practical purposes, it was issued on 10.5.2006. Subsequent affidavit was filed and it is stated that the dates i.e. 10.5.2006 and 22.5.2006 found in the proceedings are in no way concerned with the detention. He would further say that another detention order passed. 26. WP No. 65 of 2006: We again saw discrepancies in this case also. It was seen that the Government order is dated 3.6.2006. We saw a communication dated 22.6.2006 addressed to the Advisory Board referring the order dated 22.6.2006. That order dated 22.6.2006 was not readily available in the file. However, the Under Secretary would say that there was a typographical error in the proceedings. It was seen that the Government order is dated 3.6.2006. We saw a communication dated 22.6.2006 addressed to the Advisory Board referring the order dated 22.6.2006. That order dated 22.6.2006 was not readily available in the file. However, the Under Secretary would say that there was a typographical error in the proceedings. He would say that factually the approval order is dated 13.6.2006 and that it was sent by Speed Post on 14.6.2006. 27. From all these facts narrated above, it would show that sufficient attention for detention is not given for the purpose of detention. As mentioned earlier, detention is serious and it affects liberty of citizens. It not only affects liberty of the citizens, but also results in deterioration of the law and order in the State. In these days of commercialization and in these days of greediness, unless Government is serious of the Goonda Act, the object of the Act is not achieved. We totally express our displeasure for the way in which these files are treated by the authorities. This would reflect sorry state of affairs in the matter of detention files. Though arguments are advanced with regard to satisfaction and legality, we do not want to express any opinion in the light of our findings with regard to Section 3 of the Goonda Act. 28. The main argument of the petitioner is that there is violation of Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Goonda Act would read as follows: 3. Power to make orders detaining certain persons.- (1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger or drug-offender or gambler or goonda or immoral traffic offender or Slum-grabber that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such persons be detained. (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct that during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in Sub-section (1) exercise the power conferred by the sub-section. Provided that the period specified in the order made by the State Government under this sub-section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three months, but the State Government may if satisfied as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend such order to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. (3) When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in Sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. 29. On a careful reading of the Section-3, it would show that in terms of Section 3(1), the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any bootlegger or drug-offender or gambler or goonda or immoral traffic offender or Slum-grabber, such person/s may be detained. Section 3(2) would provide power to the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police with regard to detention. However, the statute would provide for specification of period by the State Government which shall not in the first instance exceed three months, but, the State Government, if satisfied, may amend such orders to extend such period from time to time by any period not exceeding three months at any one time. 30. At this stage, we must also notice Sub-section (3) of Section 3. It categorically would provide for sending of report forthwith by an officer mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 3, namely District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, to the State Government, and no each order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. A combined reading of these provisions would show that in the event of an order being passed either by the District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police, the said order will not be in force for more than 12 days, unless it is approved by the Government. It is only in terms of proviso to Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) the Government shall have power of detention for a period of three months. It is only in terms of proviso to Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) the Government shall have power of detention for a period of three months. The reason being that the it is for the Government ultimately to satisfy itself with regard to the detention and with regard to the period. Period of detention is left to the decision of the Government. Commissioner or District Magistrate can have no power to direct detention for a period of three months. 31. In WP (HC) No. 72 of 2006, order of detention would show that the Commissioner of police has chosen to direct the detenu to be detained for a period of three months. In WP (HC) No. 64 of 2006, the Deputy Commissioner has chosen to direct detention of Sri Narasimha son of Rangappa for a period of three months. In WP (HC) No. 65 of 2006, the District Magistrate has chosen to direct detention of Sri Soma for a period of three months. In WP (HC) No. 40 of 2006, the Commissioner of Police has chosen to pass detention order for a period of three months. This in our view would affect the case since a direction of three months is not available either to the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner of Police. All that the Section 3 would provide is a detention and sending of records forthwith to the Government for approval. Government has to approve the same within 12 days, failing which orders would lose its validity in terms of Section 3 of the Goonda Act. Government alone has to satisfy itself with regard to the period in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 3. Therefore, we find substance in the argument with regard to want of power in the matter of direction for a period of three months in terms of each of the impugned orders in these cases. We are therefore of the view that each one of the impugned orders, in the circumstances, are required to be set aside on the ground of want of power under Section 3 of the Goonda Act. 32. In fact, petitioners in these cases have placed before us the judgment of the Supreme Court in Makhan Singh Tarsikka Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 27 . In the said judgment, we see that the petitioner therein was detained in terms of order dated 1.3.1950. 32. In fact, petitioners in these cases have placed before us the judgment of the Supreme Court in Makhan Singh Tarsikka Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 27 . In the said judgment, we see that the petitioner therein was detained in terms of order dated 1.3.1950. He was provided grounds of detention on 15.3.1950. He was served another detention order on 30.7.1951 issued under Section 3(1) and 4 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 as amended by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951. The apex court in the said case noticed Section 7 as it stood then and observed in para-4 of its judgment reading 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 every case of detention should be placed before an Advisory Board constituted under the Act (Section 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" (Section 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. The learned Advocate General, however, urged that in view of the provision in Section 11(2) that if the Advisory Board reports that there is no sufficient cause for the detention the person concerned would be released forthwith, the direction in the order dated 30.7.1951 that the petitioner should be detained till 31.3.1952 could be ignored as mere surplusage. We cannot accept that view. It is obvious that such a direction would tend to prejudice a fair consideration of the petitioner's case when it is placed before the Advisory Board. It cannot be too often emphasized that before a person is deprived of his personal liberty the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected. 33. The Supreme Court in Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. It cannot be too often emphasized that before a person is deprived of his personal liberty the procedure established by law must be strictly followed and must not be departed from to the disadvantage of the person affected. 33. The Supreme Court in Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 1994 SC 1496 has observed reading as under: 7. There appears to be a seeming overlap in consideration of the representation of the detenu and its effect on the orders by the authorities concerned. It is seen that under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 the State Govt. is empowered to pass an order of detention in which event it has to report to the Advisory Board as envisaged in Section 11. If an order of detention was made by the authorised officer, he shall report the same as early as possible without any delay and the State Govt. shall approve the same within 12 days from the date of its making. In other words, the effect would be that the authorised officer should report as early as possible from the date of the execution of the order of detention to the Govt. and the order remains valid and in force for 12 days from the date of execution. If the order is not approved by the State Govt. within 12 days, the order of detention shall stand lapsed. For continuance after 12 days approval is mandatory and remains as fence till it is approved by the Advisory Board. If the Board disapproves, the State Govt. shall release the detenu forthwith. It is a condition precedent. If the Board approves it then the State Govt. shall confirm it. However, its operation is for one year from the date of the execution under Section 3(3)(I). However, within three weeks from the date of detention the State Govt. shall report to the Advisory Board and within seven weeks from the date of detention the Board should give its opinion. The detaining authority has no express power under PASA to revoke the order of detention after the approval given by the State Govt. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of PASA. shall report to the Advisory Board and within seven weeks from the date of detention the Board should give its opinion. The detaining authority has no express power under PASA to revoke the order of detention after the approval given by the State Govt. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of PASA. The power to rescind the detention order, therefore, would be available to the authorised officer under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act only during its operation for 12 days from the date of execution of the detention order or approval by the State Govt. whichever is later. The general power of revocation was conferred only on the State Govt., that too in writing for reasons to be recorded in that behalf. By necessary implication flowing from Section 3(3) and concomitant result is that the authorised officer has no express power or general power under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act to revoke or rescind or modify the order after the State Govt. approved of it under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 read with Section 3(1). The State Govt. alone, thereafter has power to revoke or rescind the order of detention either on representation under Article 22(5) or under Section 15 of PASA. The representation should be disposed of accordingly. The reason is obvious that once the order of detention was approved by the State Govt. within the afro-stated 12 days period or confirmed by the Advisory Board within the period of seven weeks the exercise of power by the authorised officer would run counter to or in conflict thereof. The State Govt. has been expressly conferred with powers under Section 195 to revoke, rescind or modify the order of detention at any time during one year from the date of making the order of detention. Therefore, the right of representation guaranteed under Article 22(5) would, thereafter i.e. approval under Section 3(30 be available to the detenu for consideration by the State Govt. 34. These two judgments would support the case of the petitioner. 35. In the circumstances, we deem it proper to set aside the order at Annexure-A in each of the cases without touching upon other contentions urged by the petitioners. However, we deem it proper to observe that this order is not be considered as any expression or any opinion with regard to any pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 35. In the circumstances, we deem it proper to set aside the order at Annexure-A in each of the cases without touching upon other contentions urged by the petitioners. However, we deem it proper to observe that this order is not be considered as any expression or any opinion with regard to any pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners. We also deem it proper to observe that the Government is free to pass fresh orders, if available in law and in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. No costs.