JUDGMENT : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “(a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order of detention dated 22/09/2023 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) passed by the respondent no.2 in the interest of justice; (b) xxx .. xxx.. xxx (c) xxx .. xxx.. xxx (d) xxx .. xxx.. xxx” 2. The challenge is to the order of detention dated 22.09.2023 passed by the respondent– detaining authority viz. the Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedaabad, in exercise of powers conferred under section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) by detaining the petitioner – detenue as defined under section 2(c) of the Act, relying upon two IPC offences and treating the petitioner as ‘Dangerous Person’. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that has challenged the order of detention on the ground that the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the first offence and when he was apprehended in the second offence, the police authority had an option to object to the grant of regular bail in the second offence, still the petitioner was enlarged on regular bail and thereafter also, the detaining authority has not resorted to the lesser drastic remedy of cancellation of bail before passing the order of detention. 4. Learned advocate has also challenged the order of detention on the ground that the petitioner had made a detailed representation on 22.11.2023 to the Home Department, State Government and also made representation to the detaining authority for considering the representation by the appropriate authority i.e. the State Government, still petitioner has not received any reply to such representation and in fact, the representation having remained undecided. The State is in breach of requirement of Article 22 Clause 5. In this regard, learned advocate has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajammal Vs. State of T. N. and Another, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417 , and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in (1980) 2 SCC 321 . 5. State of T. N. and Another, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417 , and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., reported in (1980) 2 SCC 321 . 5. Learned AGP has objected to grant of the petition by submitting that the detaining authority has correctly relied upon two offences which are falling under chapter 16 and 17 of the IPC and therefore, considering the proximate period during which the offences have been committed, the petitioner has been considered as a habitual offender and therefore, detained as dangerous person. Learned AGP has also pointed out that apart from these two offences, there is another offence also registered at Madhavpura police station against the petitioner. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 22.09.2023 by the Commissioner of Police, City Ahmedabad, detaining the petitioner as ‘dangerous person’ based on two offences registered within the Commissionrate. The details of which in tabular form are as under: FIR No. Name of Police Station Offence Date of Arrest Date of order of Bail 11191010230339/ 2023 Madhavpura, Ahmedabad 457 and 380 of IPC 21.06.2023 28.06.2023 11191008230554/ 2023 Chandkheda, Ahmedabad 392 and 114 of IPC 07.09.2023 16.09.2023 7. The Court has firstly taken into consideration Annexure-C collectively placed on record being a representation addressed by the petitioner immediately on 22.11.2023 to the detaining authority as well as the State Government for considering such representation. The right to make representation forms the part of the right of the petitioner under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 8. This representation though received by the detaining authority as well as the State Government, till date appears to have remained unanswered. According to this Court, the proceedings and the order of detention itself creates the right in favour of the petitioner and as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajammal (Supra) in para No.7 referring to a previous decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K. M. Abdulla Kunhi Vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 476 , has held as under: “7. It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Union of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 476 , has held as under: “7. It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation the words "as soon as may be" in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest. But that does not mean that the authority is pre-empted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned in the disposal of the representation. The Court can certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned due to permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. This position has been well delineated by a constitution Bench of this Court in K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader vs. Union of India and others (1991 (1) SC 476). The following observations of the Bench can profitable be extracted here: "It is a constitutional mandate commanding the concerned authority to whom the detenu submits his representation to consider the representation and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The words "as soon as may be" occurring in clause (5) of Article 22 reflects the concern of the Framers that the representation should be expeditiously considered and disposed of with a sense of urgency without an avoidable delay. However, there can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no period prescribed either under the Constitution or under the concerned detention law, within which the representation should be dealt with. The requirement however, is that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal." 9. Similarly, in the case of Tarachand (Supra), also the Hon’ble Apex Court has given utmost importance to obligation on the part of the Central Government to decide representation thus made, by the detenue, with urgency. In the present case, as there is nothing on record to indicate that the representation was ever answered, there is no question of referring any delay in answering the representation. In the present case, as there is nothing on record to indicate that the representation was ever answered, there is no question of referring any delay in answering the representation. In that view of matter, the order of detention is required to be quashed and set aside. 10. In view of above, we are inclined to allow this petition, because simplicitor registration of FIR/s by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order and the authority cannot have recourse under the Act and no other relevant and cogent material exists for invoking power under section 3(2) of the Act. 11. In the result, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 22.09.2023 passed by the respondent – detaining authority is hereby quashed and set aside. The detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 12. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.