Judgment Z.K. Saiyed, J.—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 14, 21 and 22 is preferred challenging the legality and validity of the order of detention dated 4th June, 2011 passed by Respondent No. 1 - District Magistrate, Amreli, in exercise of powers conferred under the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supply of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 ( “PBM Act” for short) as being invalid, null and void and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 2. While assailing the above order, learned advocate for the petitioner emphatically relied on the main ground that the detaining authority has not forwarded the report and the facts of the case to the State Government together with the documents and materials and if it is forwarded then there is an unexplained delay in forwarding the same and, therefore, there is clear breach of mandatory provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. He has further contended that there is delay in forwarding representation by the detaining Authority to the Secretary, Food & Civil Supply Department, Gandhinagar, Chairman, PBM Advisory Board and the Secretary, Union of India. Therefore, the order of detention is liable to be quashed and set aside. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B. Audi Lakshmi vs. Government of A.P. and Ors., reported in AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh 282, wherein it was held that all the documents, together with copies of all the documents relied upon for passing the order of detention have to be furnished to the detenue, together with the order of detention. He further submitted that the set of documents does not show any date and it is shrouded with mystery as to whether the said requirement has been complied with. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 684 in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamilnadu and it is submitted that the authority is duty bound to give a justifiable explanation when the matter involves breach of fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under Article 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India and admittedly, the representation is not decided. 3. 3. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as referred above, I deem it just and proper to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 4th June, 2011 passed by the authority. 4. In view of above, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs. The petitioner – detenue is hereby ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. P P P P P