( 1 ) LITTLE concern for the liberty of a citizen together with lack of awareness of its obligation arising out of the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution resulting in a mechanical rejection of the detenus representation by the Government compels us to quash the order of his detention and bring his detention to an end.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is detained pursuant to the order dated 8-8-1985 passed by the District Magistrate Junagadh under sec. 3 (2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act ). The order was passed against him on the ground that he is a notorious bootlegger and that because of his activities of manufacturing and selling illicit liquor public order in the locality of Vankarvas of Vanthali town is adversely affected. The District Magistrate was also satisfied that inspite of so many cases registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act he was still continuing his said prejudicial activities; and therefore with a view to preventing him from continuing the same it was necessary to detain him.

( 3 ) THE order of detention is challenged on various grounds. But it is not necessary to refer to all of them as this petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the representation which was made by the petitioner was not considered by the State Government the way it is expected to consider the same. It is the case of the petitioner that be had sent one representation to the State Government from the jail and that has not been considered by the State Government. It is also his case that his wife had made another representation dated 13-8-1985 on his behalf to the State Government. That representation is also not considered by the State Government. Failure to consider these representations has rendered his continued detention illegal.

( 4 ) IN reply to these averments and allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the petition what the Under Secretary to the Government of Gujarat in Home Department has stated in his affidavit is as under:with reference to the averments and allegation made in para 12 of the petition I say that the representation dated 13-8-1985 from detenus wife was received by the Home Department on 7-10-1985. On receipt of the representation notes:were prepared I say that after preparing the notes the same were placed before the Government and after carefully considering the representation of the detenu the same has been rejected on 8-10-1985. His wife submitted another representation dated nil. The said representation received in home Department on 6-12-1985 was also rejected on 10-12-1985. The reply was sent to the detenu and his wife. Nothing is stated as regards the representation sent by the detenu from the jail. He does not say whether it was received by the Government or not. The State Government ought to have explained what happened to that representation in view of its obligation arising out of Article 22 of the Constitution read with sec. 9 (1) of the Act to consider a representation made by a detenu. Except total silence we do not find anything in the reply in this behalf.

( 5 ) AS regards the representation dated 13-8-1985 it is stated that it was received by the Home Department on 7-10-1955. It is further stated that the said representation was considered by the State Government carefully and was rejected on 19-10-1985. In the petition it is specifically stated and it is also borne out by the copy of the representation which has been produced before us and the original representation which we find in the file of the State Government that in the representation addressed to the Government the petitioner has pointed out that the statements on the basis of which he is detained are really not made by those persons. Copies of the affidavits made by those persons stating that they had not given those statements were also sent to the Government along with the representation. Eventhough this point has been tak