Judgment

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:- We grant special leave and proceed to hear the appeal.

2. The petitioner, Abdul Latif Wahab Sheikh, was in jail from November 12, 1985 onwards awaiting trial on a charge of murder. He was acquitted on May 26, 1986. Though acquitted, he was not straightway released from prison. The reasons are not clear to us from the record. Presumably he was required in connection with some other case. He was due for release from prison on June 23, 1986. On that day, however, an order for his detention was made under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985. The mandate of Art. 22(4) of the Constitution is that no law providing for preventing detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court, has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention. Section 10 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 provides for the constitution of an Advisory Board, Sec. 11 provides for reference to the Advisory Board and Sec. 12 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board. What is important for the purposes of this case is that Sec. 11 stipulates that in every case where a detention order has been made under the Act, the State Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the order has been made, the representation, if any, made by the detenu and the report, if any, of the authorised officer. What is intriguing in the case is that on the date when the detention order was made, there was no Advisory Board in existence to which a reference could be made under Sec. 11 of the Act and whose report of its opinion regarding sufficient cause for the detention was required to be obtained within three months of the detention under Art. 22(4) of the Constitution. The period of three weeks stipulated by Sec. 11 of the Act expired on July 14, 1986. The petitioner was entitled to be released on July 14, 1986 as no reference had been made to the Advisory Board within the period contemplated by Sec. 11 of the Act. But he was not so released. This state of affairs continued till August 7, 1986 when the order of detention dated June 23, 1986 was revoked and a fresh order of detention was made on the same facts, on the same day. In the meanwhile, the order of detention dated June 23, 1986 had been challenged by filing a writ petition in the High Court. Consequent on the revocation of that order that writ petition was withdrawn as having become infructuous and another writ petition, out of which the present appeal arises, was filed questioning the second order of detention dated August 7, 1986. The Advisory Board was constituted on August 18, 1986. A reference to the Advisory Board was made on August 20,1986. The Advisory Board made its report on September 26, 1986. It will be seen that the report of the Advisory Board was more than three months after the detention which commenced on the making of the order of detention, though it was within three months from the date of the second order of detention. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has been a contravention of the constitutional protection afforded by Art. 22(4) and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be set at liberty. He does not dispute that under See. 15(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act the expiry or revocation of an earlier detention order shall not bar the making of a subsequent detention order under the Act against the same person, subject to the proviso that if there were no fresh facts, the maximum period for which a person may be detained shall not extend beyond the expiry of a period of 12 months from the date of de