B.S. Kapadia, J.
1. The petitioner Rajiyabanu has challenged the order of detention dated 9-3-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against her husband Hyder alias Bhura Gulam Hussain Shaikh with a prayer for writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ and for quashing and setting aside the order of detention.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, who is the respondent No. 1 and the detaining authority has passed the impugned order on his being satisfied with respect to said Hyder @ Bhura Gulam Hussain Shaikh that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the area of Ahmedabad City it was necessary to make order directing that the said Hyder @ Bhura Gulam Hussain Shaikh be detained and accordingly passed the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. The detenu has been served with the order as also grounds for detention on the same day i.e. 9-3-1988.
3. On persual of the grounds it appears that there are four cases pending against the detenu under the Bombay Prohibition Act, being C.R. Nos. 342 of 1985, 145 of 1985, 159 of 1987 as also one case being C.R. No. 22 of 1988 of Viramgam Town. In the aforesaid cases large quantities of-Indian made Foreign liquor was seized. There were also cases filed under Chapter XVI of the IPC namely, C.R. No. 24 of 1986 and 2 of 1988 of Kalupur Police Station and C.R. No. 25 of 1987 of D.C.B. Police Station, against the detenu. There is also reference of statements of four witnesses recorded on 31-12-1987, 3-1-1988, 7-1-1988 and 17-1-1988. After considering various other alternative less drastic remedies in the nature of proceedings under Section 93 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, externment proceedings under Sections 57(c) and 56(8) of the Bombay Police Act as also prosecution under the ordinary law the detaining authority was of the opinion that the said remedies were not enough and effective and that the only last alternative was to detain him and he has accordingly passed the impugned order.
4. The petitioner has raised various grounds in the petition challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order as also the continued detention of the detenu. However, at the time of hearing Mr. K.I. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioner has pressed before us only one ground. It may be stated that the ground which he has raised now was not raised in the petition earlier, but he has sought our permission to amend the petition for the purpose and we have granted him permission to amend the petition. Accordingly, the said additional ground has been raised in the petition as Para-8A. According to the said contention of Mr. Patel, the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act are not complied with inasmuch as the report of the Advisory Board was not submitted within seven weeks from the date of detention of the detenu and hence continued detention is bad and illegal.
5. In view of this newly raised ground Mr. R.R. Tripathi, learned A.G.P. submitted that it would be a matter of perusing the original file and that it is not necessary to file any further affidavit on the point.
6. On perusal of the file it appears that the Advisory Board's report is dated 22-4-1988. Below the aforesaid date 13-5-1988 is also put. Therefore, that appears to be the date on which the report of the Advisory Board was sent to the State Government. It also appears from the file that the date of 13-5-1988 has been posted as the date of receipt of the report by the State Government. It is also on the record that apart from the said report sent by the Advisory Board of 13-5-1988, there is also opinion of the Board dated 24-4-1988 which also seems to have been received by the Government. In view of the above position it is necessary to examine as to whether the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act have been complied with or not Section 12(1) of the Act provides that the Advisory Board shall, after considering the materials placed before it and, after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the State Government or from any person called for the purpose through the State Govt, or from the detenu and if, in any particular case, the Advisory Board considers it essential so to do or if the detenu desires to be heard, after hearing the detenu in person, submit its report to the State Govt, within seven weeks from the date of detention of the detenu.
7. It may be stated that the word 'report' has not been defined in the Act. However, there are certain indications in the said subsection itself which clearly speak about the contents of the report. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act clearly speaks that the report of the Advisory Board shall specify in a separate part thereof the opinion of the Advisory Board as to whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu. Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act also clearly speaks that the proceedings of the Advisory Board and its report excepting that part of the report in which the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified shall be confidential. Thus, it is clear that the opinion of the Advisory Board would be part of its report and when mere opinion is submitted it cannot be said that the Advisory Board ha submitted its report as required under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.
8. Further it clear from Section 13 of the Act that in any case where the Advisory Board has reported there is, in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, the State Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the detenu for a period not exceeding the maximum period prescribed by Section 14 of the Act as it thinks fit. At the time of confirmation of the order of detention the State Govt, has to take into consideration the report of the Advisory Board. It is therefore, clear from the perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act that when the report under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act is to be made to the State Govt, within seven weeks from the date of detention of the detenu, it should be the whole report, including the opinion of the Advisory Board. It is therefore, clear that the entire report of the Advisory Board in the instant case was sent to the State Govt, on 13-5-1988. The detention order is dated 9-3-1988 and the date of detention is also 9-3-1988. Therefore, seven weeks would be completed on 27-4-1988. The report including the opinion of the Advisory Board should have been submitted to the State Govt, on or before 27th April, 1988. However, in this case the said mandatory requirement has not been complied with. Therefore, the continued detention of the detenu becomes bad and illegal.
9. In above view of the matter the detention order deserves to be quashed and set aside. In result the petition is allowed. The order of detention dated 9-3-1988 is hereby quashed and set aside, holding that the continued detention of the detenu is illegal. The detenu-Hyder Bhura Gulam Hussain Shaikh is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if no more required in any other case. Accordingly the Rule is made absolute.