(1.) THROUGH this Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who styles himself as the brother of the detenu Ramesh Jaggu Patel @ Ramesh Michel, has impugned the order dated 5th April, 2001 passed by the second Respondent Mr. Vijay Kumar, the District Magistrate, Collectorate, Daman, detaining the detenu under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 as extended to the Union Territory of Daman and Diu vide Notification No. U-11015/2/93-UTL/183 dated 25th September, 1995. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 5th April, 2001, was served on the detenu on 5th April, 2001 itself, and their true copies are annexed as Exhibits 'a' and 'b' respectively to this Writ Petition.
(2.) THE prejudicial activities of the detenu impelling the second Respondent to pass the impugned order against him are contained in the grounds of detention Exhibit 'b'. Since in our Judgment, a reference to them is not necessary for the adjudication of ground 6 (iv) pleaded in the Petition, on which ground alone, in our judgment, this petition deserves to succeed, we are not adverting to them.
(3.) WE have perused ground No. 6 (iv), paragraph 7 (iv) of the return of Smt. Pooja Gupta, wherein, the said ground has been replied to, and heard learned Counsel for the parties. In our view there is substance in ground No. 6 (iv) and this Petition deserves to succeed. A perusal of paragraph 7 of Ishwarlal Dave's case (supra) would show that if an order of detention was made by the authorised officer, he shall report the same as early as possible, without any delay and the State Government shall approve the same within twelve days of its being passed, and in case, the State Government does not approve it within twelve days, the order shall lapse. It has also held in the said paragraph that -