JUDGMENT M.S.SONAK,J. - Heard Ms Maria Caroline Collasso, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr S.G. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents- State. 2. Rule. At the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Rule is made returnable immediately. 3. In Criminal Writ Petition Nos.125 and 126 of 2022 decided on 20/12/2022, we have quashed and set aside identical detention orders. One of the reasons for setting aside such detention orders was that the respondents failed to communicate the grounds of detention to the petitioners even though the detention order was served upon them on 06/09/2022. Besides, in the detention order, the detenue was never informed about his right to represent against the same to the detaining authorities. 4. Before us, it is not disputed that the same position obtains insofar as the detention order impugned in this case is concerned. Not only the detention order is identical but the circumstances which obtained in other two petitions also obtain in the present petition. 5. Therefore, by adopting the reasoning in the judgment and order dtd. 20/12/2022 disposing of Criminal Writ Petition Nos.125 and 126 of 2022, we allow this petition and the Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'a' of this petition. 6. Accordingly the impugned detention order dtd. 03/09/2022 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is ordered in any other matter. 7. Registry to process the issuance of the writ with utmost despatch.