( 1 ) MR. K. D. GANDHI, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to amend the cause title of the petition. Permission is granted. Amendment to be carried out immediately.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/detenu-Mukesh Himatlal Sheth, residing at Kantilal House, 14, Mama Parmanand Marg, Mumbai, challenges the order of detention dated 18th October, 2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Patan, ordering the detention of the petitioner under Section 3 (1) read with Section 3 (H) and 3 (I) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (the Act) on the said authority s subjective satisfaction that such detention was necessary with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. (The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention to the fact that there is an error in quoting the provisions of the Act in the order. The correct provisions are Section 2 (h) and 2 (i) and not Section 3 (H) and 3 (I) of the Act ).)

( 3 ) IT appears that a similar order of detention under Section 3 read with Section 2 (h) of the Act had been made against the petitioner s brother Rajesh Himatlal Sheth which has been challenged by his brother before this Court by way of a writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 21775 of 2005 wherein notice had been issued on 25th October 2005 which was made returnable on 28th October 2005. On the returnable date, it appears that the Court after perusing the order of detention had observed that no coercive measures would be taken against the petitioner s brother since the matter is sub-judice.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that with a view to overreach the process of the Court, police personnel from Gujarat Police had come along with Maharashtra Police, to the residence of the petitioner and his brother on 30th October, 2005 at 3:00 p. m. to arrest both the petitioner and his brother. However, since the petitioner s brother was not available at his residence, the petitioner was taken away from his residence by the police personnel under the guise of recording his statement without serving a copy of the warrant or the order of detention. Whereas it is the case of the respondents, as stated in the return filed by the detaining authority, that the petitioner had refused to take the detention order and that the same was served upon the petitioner by pasting the same at the residence of the petitioner. It is also stated that for the purpose of executing the detention order the respondent authorities had taken the help of the Maharashtra authorities as the petitioner was staying at Bombay. Therefore, it is an admitted position that the detention order was executed at Bombay.

( 5 ) IT is also stated on behalf of the respondents that upon executing the detention order, the petitioner was taken to the Bharuch sub-jail and that the petitioner has accepted the detention order along with the grounds at Bharuch sub-jail on 31st October, 2005. The said statement has been refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that only the grounds of detention have been served on the petitioner and that the order of detention has not been served on the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents be directed to place a copy of the detention order on record. The respondents have disputed the say of the petitioner. However, with a view to complete the record, a copy of the detention order has been placed on record.

( 6 ) THIS petition was moved for urgent circulation during the vacation and was heard on 1st November 2005. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior Advocate, Mr. K. S. Nanavati appearing on behalf of the petitioner had vehemently pressed for grant of interim relief. However, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh, AIR 1966 SC 1441, wherein i