( 1 ) A short but interesting question arises in this petition as to what is the effect of withdrawal of a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus without liberty being reserved by the Court for filing fresh petition in respect of the same cause of action. The question arises in the following circumstances:

( 2 ) ONE Girish Ambalal Gandhi has been detained by an order of the Police Commissioner dated August 12 1985 in 110 exercise of his powers under Section 3 of the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The brother of the detenu moved this Court by Special Criminal Application No. 618 of 1985 praying for a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the said order of detention. The petitioner was heard fully by the Division Bench consisting of G. T. Nanavati and M. B. Shah JJ. on September 17 1985 when the matter was exhaustively argued by Mr. M. R. Barot learned Advocate then appearing on behalf of the petitioner in that petition who happens to be the brother of the detenu. The matter ultimately reached for judgment on 19th September 1985 At that time another learned Advocate Mr. V. M. Barot appeared for Mr. M. R. Barot who had argued the matter on behalf of the detenu when an attempt was made to advance a contention about the delay in considering the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. The Division Bench did not permit Mr. V. M. Barot who urged this point or to allow him to amend the petition with the result that the learned Advoocate Mr. V. M. Barot sought permission from the Court to withdraw the petition with leave to file fresh petition. the Division Bench passed the following order permitting withdrawal of the petition: 28-1-1986 learned counsel Mr. M. R. Barot appearing for the petitioners concluded his arguments on 17th September 1985 Today when we were about to start dictating the judgment Mr. V. M. Barot for Mr. M. R. Barot seeks leave to withdraw this Special Criminal Application as he proposes to file a fresh petition raising certain additional contentions. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State has no objection. Permission is therefore granted. Petition disposed of as withdrawn. Rule discharged. The present petition was moved thereafter on the next day that is on September 20 1985 The same Bench of G. T. Nanavati and M. B. Shah JJ. issued rule which reached for hearing on the returnable date before another Bench of A. M. Ahmadi and D. H. Shukla JJ. on December 3 1985 At the time of hearing a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Public Prosecutor then appearing on behalf of the State that the earlier petition was withdrawn after it was thoroughly and extensively argued before the earlier Division Bench and therefore the second petition was not competent. On behalf of the petitioner it was not disputed that the earlier petition was filed and withdrawn. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been permitted by the earlier Bench to withdraw the petition reserving on him liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the very same detention order. The State Government joined issue as to whether permission was so granted as claimed on behalf of the petitioner. The Division Bench having regard to this controversy referred to matter 10 the earlier Bench at the request of the learned advocate for the petitioner. Accordingly the matter was placed for clarification before the Division Bench of G. T. Nanavati and M. B. Shah JJ. On December 10 1985 when the Division Bench clarified the position in the following terms:after hearing the learned advocates for both the sides it is clarified that when we disposed of Special Criminal Application No. 618 of 1985 permission to file a fresh petition was not specifically sought for. But Mr. Barot had stated to the Court that he wanted to file a fresh petition because his oral request to amend the petition was objected to b