JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been detained as a dangerous person by the order dated 9.11.2019 passed by the detaining authority, for the following reliefs: “1. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit and allow this petition. 2. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order No. DM/DTN/PASA/14/2018/7083/2019 of detention dated 9.11.2019 by the respondent No.2 herein which is at Annexure – 'A' by way of issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in the interest of justice. 3. Pending admission and/ or final disposal of this petition this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order No. DM/DTN/PASA/14/2018/7083/2019 of detention dated 9.11.2019 by the respondent No.2 herein. 4. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs as the circumstances of the case may require. 5. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to award cost of this petition.” 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for the respondents waives service of Rule. 3. Heard Mr. Rafik Lokhandwala, learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nikunj Kanara, learned AGP for the respondents and perused the material placed on record and the decisions cited by the parties. 4. The main grievance of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the detention order was passed as early as on 26.12.2018 and has got confirmed from the State on 9.11.2019 i.e. 11 months thereafter. He has invited the attention of the Court with regard to the provisions of Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985. In view the matter, as per the provisions of Section 3(3) of the PASA, the State Government has to take decision within 12 days and if the State Government fails to do so, the initial order of detention is vitiated. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions: (1) Mannsing Babusing Thakore v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1989 CRI.L.J. 1573; (2) Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and Another v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 754. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions: (1) Mannsing Babusing Thakore v. Commissioner of Police, reported in 1989 CRI.L.J. 1573; (2) Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and Another v. State of Gujarat and others, reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 754. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also alleged that the order passed by the detaining authority is not in consonance with the principle and order is passed without application of mind and there are five cases filed against the accused and out of these, he is acquitted of 2 offences. He has also contended that the various decisions of our High Court as well as Supreme Court clearly lay down the principle that while mere filing of the FIR does not make a person dangerous to the society. He has also contended that after 24.10.2017, no criminal offence has been registered against the petitioner. While relying on the following decision, the learned advocate for the petitioner has prayed to allow the present petition. (1) Sanjay@Sunny @Kekdo Maheshbhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat and 2 others, reported in 2015 SCC Online Guj 3799; (1) Abdul Razak Nannekhan Pathan v. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Another, reported in (1989) 4 SACC 43; (2) Mustakmiya Jabbarmiya Shaikh v. M.M.Mehta, Commissioner of Police and Others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 237 ; (3) Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. Police Commissioner and Another, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 370 ; (4) Omprakash v. Commissioner of Police and others, reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 576. 6. Per contra, the learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara submits that so far as the acquittal of the petitioner is concerned, that order has been made after passing of the order of detention order and, therefore, the said submission shall not be considered. While referring to the papers, learned AGP has submitted that the detaining authority has not committed any error of fact and law. The learned AGP has also submitted that the question of delay is not available to the petitioner. He has submitted to pass necessary order. 7. Now, admittedly, the present petitioner is under detention since 11.11.2019. While referring to the papers, learned AGP has submitted that the detaining authority has not committed any error of fact and law. The learned AGP has also submitted that the question of delay is not available to the petitioner. He has submitted to pass necessary order. 7. Now, admittedly, the present petitioner is under detention since 11.11.2019. At this stage it is required to be noted that Section 3(3) of The Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985, which reads thus: “3(3)When any order is made under this section by an authorised officer he shall forthwith report the fact tot he State Government, together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in, his opinion, having 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.” 8. On perusal of the provisions contained in the aforesaid Act, it is clearly found that it is the duty of the State Government to decide the same within 12 days and after lapse of with period, the order of detention shall not be in existence, as has been held in the case of Mannsing Babusing Thakore v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad and others, (Supra) wherein in Para4, this Court has observed as under: “4. On plain reading of S.3(3) of the said Act, it is clear that the detaining authority is required to report forthwith the fact of passing the detention order to the State Government, together with the grounds of detention and other materials which have bearing on the impugned order of detention. It is also clear that wherever the Legislature is using the word 'forthwith', it is so advisedly using it and on perusal of the entire scheme, it is very clear that there is a very tight schedule of time. Immediately on getting the report together with the grounds and other materials, the State Government has to consider the same for the purpose of approval and if the approval is not given within the period of 12 days, the said order does not remain in force after 12th day and, therefore, the legislature has advisedly used the word 'forthwith' meaning of which is now settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court. It means it is to be done with all reasonable despatch and without avoidable delay, (See AIR 1957 SC 28 :(1957 Cri. LJ 10) the case of Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar v. Commr. of Police. In the said case, the Supreme Court has also in clean terms stated that they do not wish to underscore the need of the strict compliance with that requirement and it is important requirement intended to secure that the State Government shall have sufficient time for consideration before it decides to give approval within 12 days of making of the order of detention, The court would, therefore, insist on the strict compliance with it and not condone avoidable delay”. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others (Supra), especially in Para7, 8 and 11, which read as under: “7. Sub-section (3) of S. 3 says that when any order of detention was made under sub-sec. (1) thereof by any authorised officer, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Govt. 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 12 days after making thereof, unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Govt. The detaining authority, the second respondent, did not file any counter-affidavit and the counter-affidavit and Addl. affidavit filed by Sri J. M. Parmar, did not mention as to when the 2nd respondent reported to them of the order of detention and the grounds or any other particulars deemed relevant as mandated in S. 3(3). We assume that the 2nd respondent sent them and were received by February 20, 1993 and immediately thereafter it was referred to the Advisory Board for its opinion. It was not stated in the counter affidavit that the State Govt. approved the order of detention, within 12 days from the date of receipt by the State Govt. i.e. February 20, 1993. The mandate of S. 3(3) is that the action of the authorised officer would be legal only when the State Govt. approves of it and in its absence on expiry of 12 days detention order should stand lapsed. approved the order of detention, within 12 days from the date of receipt by the State Govt. i.e. February 20, 1993. The mandate of S. 3(3) is that the action of the authorised officer would be legal only when the State Govt. approves of it and in its absence on expiry of 12 days detention order should stand lapsed. S. 15 postulates that without prejudice to the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 a detention order may at any time, for reasons to be recorded in the order, be revoked or modified by the State Govt., notwithstanding that the order has been made by an authorised officer, Sub-sec. (2) is not material for the purpose of this case. Hence omitted. S. 21 of the General Clauses Act envisages that where, by any Gujarat Act, a power to Issue notification, orders, rules or byelaws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions if any, to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notification, order, rules or byelaws are issued. Art. 22(5) of the Constitution accords constitutional right of representation to the detenu against any order made in pursuance of any law. The mandatory duty on the authority making such order, "shall as soon as may be" communicated to such person, the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. S. 11 of PASA provides that within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order the State Govt. shall place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the order has been made, etc. as well as the report made by the authorised officer under sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 and the representation, if any. The Board under S. 12 shall submit its report, after considering the material placed before it and the representation of the detenu and if the detenu desires to be heard, after hearing him in person, within 7 weeks from the date of the detention of the detenu. If the Advisory Board reports that in its opinion there is no sufficient cause for the detention, the State Govt. shall revoke the detention order and cause the detenu to be released forthwith. Under S. 13 the State Govt. If the Advisory Board reports that in its opinion there is no sufficient cause for the detention, the State Govt. shall revoke the detention order and cause the detenu to be released forthwith. Under S. 13 the State Govt. may confirm the order of detention for a period of one year from the date of detention. In other words, from the date of execution of the order of detention as provided under S. 14. 8. 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-sec. (1) of S. 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 S. 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 S. 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-sec. (3) of S. 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-sec. (3) of S. 3 of PASA. The power to rescind the detention order, therefore, would be available to the authorised officer under S. 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 S. 3(3) and concomitant result is that the authorised officer has no express power or general power under S. 21 of the General Clauses Act to revoke or rescind or modify the order after the State Govt. approved of it under sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 read with S. 3(1). The State Govt. alone, thereafter has power to revoke or rescind the order of detention either on representation under Art. 22(5) or under S. 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 aforestated 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 S. 15 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 Art. 22(5) would, thereafter i.e. approval under S. 3(3) be available to the detenu for consideration by the State Govt. 11. It is seen that though the representation was received by the State Govt. on February 20, 1993, the State Govt. decided to keep it pending awaiting the opinion of the Board and on receipt of the report on March 23, 1993, considered the case and the representation was rejected on the even date, namely, March 23, 1993. In view of this consistent settled law the action of the State Govt. on February 20, 1993, the State Govt. decided to keep it pending awaiting the opinion of the Board and on receipt of the report on March 23, 1993, considered the case and the representation was rejected on the even date, namely, March 23, 1993. In view of this consistent settled law the action of the State Govt. in keeping the representation without being considered and disposed of expeditiously, awaiting the decision of the Board till March 23, 1993 and consideration of the representation thereafter and rejection are illegal. In addition we have on record that the detaining authority had not filed its counter as to how the representation of the second appellant was dealt with or rejected. That apart, there is no material placed before the Court that the State Govt. has approved within 12 days after execution of the detention order i.e. Feb. 5, 1993. On expiry of 12 days the order of detention becomes non-est and the subsequent confirmation by the Board or by the State Govt. does not blow life into the corpse. In either case the order of detention became illegal. Accordingly we had allowed the appeals on May 3, 1993 and directed release of the detenus forthwith. The reasons now are as above. The result in this judgment does not enure to Prashant Manubai Vora the absconding detenu. The appeals are accordingly allowed.” 10. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, there is clear breach of Section 3(3) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 and, therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed on this ground without dealing other aspects. 11. In the result, the Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned order of detention No.DM/DTN/PASA/14/2018/7083/2019 dated 09.11.2019 passed by the respondent authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.