( 1 ) THIS petition was heard earlier by a Division Bench consisting of our learned brothers S. B. Majmudar and V. H. Bhairavia, JJ. on 2-5-1989. At that time various points were raised but only one point was pressed and other points were given up. The point that was raised on behalf of the petitioner was that after the petitioner was heard by the Advisory Board on 29-7-1988, he had sent a representation to the Board on 2-8-88. The said representation was received by the Board on 3-8-1988 but it had sent its report giving opinion against the detenu on 6-8-1988 without considering the representation and therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner should be regarded as illegal. In view of this contention, the Division Bench had issued notice to the Advisory Board. On 5-5-1989 Mr. M. D. Pandya, Public Prosecutor appeared for the Advisory Board and made a statement that after hearing the detenu on 29-7-1988 the Board had already taken a decision on that day and only writing of report was deferred and ultimate the report was sent on 6-8-1988. As the representation of the detenu was received after the decision was already taken by the Board, it was not taken into consideration. Now the petition has come up before us for hearing the only point which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner.

( 2 ) IT is an admitted position that the detenu made a representation on 1-8-1988 and the same was sent by the Jail Authorities to the State Government and the advisory Board on 2-8-1988. Both the authorities had received the same on 3-8-1988. The State Government, after receiving the same on 3-8-1988 considered and rejected it on 4-8-1988. The Advisory Board had fixed the hearing of the petitioners case on 29-7-1988. On that date the petitioner was personally heard. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had informed the Advisory Board that he would be sending any representation in writing thereafter or that he had come in possession of some more material, which, if it had been considered by the Advisory Board, would have possibly changed its decision. What is urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate person and was not informed that the should make a representation to the Advisory Board before it takes a decision. It was, therefore, necessary for the Board, it being under a legal obligation to consider detenus representation, to consider it even though it was received after it had taken the decision but before it had sent its opinion. The function of the Advisory Board would come to an end only when it sends its opinion under Section 12 of the Act. He also submitted that the State Government should have also forwarded the representation received by it to the Advisory Board as the Advisory Board had not given its opinion till that date. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in S. K. Sekawat v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 249. In that case the State Government had received the representation of the detenu after the Advisory Board had made its report but before it had confirmed the order of detention. The Supreme Court held that as the order of detention was not confirmed, it was necessary for the State Government to consider the said representation before confirming the order of detention. The Supreme Court pointed out that over and above the opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government has to consider the representation of the detenu, if made, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to confirm the order of detention. As regards the obligation of the State Government to forward the representation of the detenu received after the prescribed period within which it has to place before the Advisory Board the grounds and other material, the Supreme Court did not express any opinion. Therefore, we will have to consider the validity of the contentions of the petitioner with reference to Article 22 (5) of the