- (1.) Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the writ petition that has been refiled in which the following specific averments are made:- "(2) The Central Advisory Board follows a practice to give every detenu a fairly advance written intimation of the date of hearing before them, that too, with an option to keep an Advocate present for effectively representing his case. In the matters of other detenus, the State Advisory Board had suo motu given advance permission to take assistance of a friend to represent their case. However, in the instant case the written communication of intimation dated 02.02.2021 of the hearing by the State Advisory Board sent by Fax to Jail Authorities was served in jail on or about 03.02.2021, just before commencement of video conference hearing by the State Advisory Board on the same date i.e. 03.02.2021 at 08:40 Hrs (scheduled at 08:30 Hrs). (3) Even the denial of specific request for furnishing translated copies and other material and information was also communicated only on or about 03.02.2021 along with the said intimation dated 02.02.2021 of hearing issued by State Advisory Board. Despite specific written request made in the representation, even brief reasons for rejecting every request made, were not communicated to the detenu. (4) No reason was even orally informed in the virtual Advisory Board meeting regarding such specific requests made in the representation rejected by the Detaining Authority. (5) Such empty formality of hearing on video conference, without any sufficient prior intimation to the detenu for preparation or arrangement for such hearing, without permitting any time to seek assistance by any friend or advocate, that too when the detenu has no documents/materials/judgments in his hand, cannot be justified for preventive detention. (6) Significantly, even the fate of the various requests made to the Detaining Authority vide representation dated 07.01.2021 was not communicated before 03.02.2021 i.e. date of hearing before the State Advisory Board. Even the Statement of the Detenu himself recorded in Hindi after his detention was not supplied to the detenu before the date of hearing. " To this, the only answer given in the counter affidavit filed is as follows: "27. That the Advisory Board in the instant case has conducted the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. A memorandum dated 02/02/2021 regarding the hearing to be held on 03/02/2021 through Video Conferencing was communicated to the Superintendent Central Jail with a request to serve a copy to the present detenu in accordance with which the present detenu participated in the hearing through Video conference and made his submission before the State Advisory Board. The Central Government after considering the opinion of the State Advisory Board that there is sufficient cause for the detention of Shri Bhargav Kanubhai Tanti confirmed the detention order vide Order dated 25.02.2021 for a period of one year from date of detention i.e. from 16/12/2020. " This Court in Mrs. Hamida Sarfaraz Qureishi vs. M.S. Kasbekar and Others, (1980) 4 SCC 478 has held as follows: "7. In the instant case, the detenu had through his representation dated June 27, 1980 to the detaining authority, expressed a desire to appear before the Advisory Board and be heard in person. Under Section 11(1) of the PREBL ACT, therefore, the authority concerned was peremptorily required to afford to the detenu a proper opportunity to be heard in person by the Advisory Board. But in the instant case, such an opportunity was not given to the detenu, despite request. Firstly, no reasonable notice about the date of meeting of the Advisory Board was given to the detenu. It was only about one or two hours before the scheduled time of the meeting of the Advisory Board that a police officer went to the hospital in which the detenu was confined, to inform about the meeting of the Board. Even that information was given only to the wife of the detenu for further transmission to the detenu who was then precariously ill and disabled from doing anything. Thus, the so called opportunity of being heard in person by the Advisory Board, was a farce, and amounted to a negation of the right conferred on him under Section 11(1) of the Act. " Following this judgment, it is obvious that no effective hearing was given to the petitioner by the Advisory Board. As a result, without going into any other ground, the Detention Order is set aside on this ground and the petitioner is ordered to be released immediately. The Writ Petition is allowed. ;