ition Crl No 5124 of 1981 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India R K Garg V J Francis and Sunil Kumar Jain for the Petitioner
KG Bhagat and D Goburdhan for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BAHARUL ISLAM J
This is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by the petitioner who has been detained under Section 32 of the hereinafter the Act
The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this petition and not disputed before us may be stated thus The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate Dhanbad Bihar on April 30 1981
The grounds of detention which were three in number were served on the petitioner on May 1 1981 and the State Government approved the order of detention on May 7 1981
In pursuance of Section 10 of the Act the State Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board constituted under the Act on May 19
The petitioner submitted his represen 838 tation against this detention on May 31 1981
A copy of the representation was sent to the Advisory Board
The Advisory Board by its report dated June 29 1981 gave its opinion that there was sufficient ground for the detention of the petitioner and on receipt of the report the State Government in pursuance of the provisions of sub section l of Section 12 of the Act confirmed the detention of the petitioner and under Section 13 of the Act directed the detention of the petitioner for a period of one year
The first contention of Mr RK Garg learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the State Government did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and thereby violated Article 22S of the Constitution
In the counter affidavit the respondents have stated since the Advisory Board was going to consider this case on June 29 1981 the comments of the District Magistrate were kept handy for use during the sitting of the Board
The report of the Board was received by the Government after office hours on June 29 1981
The next morning ie on June 30 1981 the report of the Advisory Board as well as the representation of the petitioner was examined by the office and the file was endorsed to the Chief Minister on July 1 1981 by the Special Secretary of the Home Special Department suggesting that in view of the report of the Advisory Board the detention of Shri Rahamatullah may be confirmed and be directed to be detained for a period of twelve months  3
Before we consider the first submission of learned counsel a few more facts need be stated
In the writ petition the petitioner alleged that he had submitted the representation on May 13 1981 which fact was denied by the respondents in their counter aftidavit they asserted that the representation was submitted not on May 13 but May 31
This has not been controverted before us by Mr Garg
It has further been stated in the counter affidavit and not denied by the petitioner that the petitioner submitted the representation to the Superintendent of the District Jail Dhanbad where he was detained the Superintendent District Jail sent it by registered post on the following day namely June 1 and the Home Special Department of the Government received it on June 5
It has been stated further in the counter affidavit that the representation contained certain points which needed a report from the District Magistrate
A copy of the representation was sent on June 10 to the District Magistrate Dhanbad through a Special messenger 839 for comments which were received on June 24
The respondents explained that since the Advisory Board was going to sit for consideration of the Petitioner s case on June 29 they sent the representation of the petitioner to the Advisory Board for consideration and placed the comments of the District Magistrate before Advisory Board
The Advisory Board s report was received on June 29 and the following day the Home Department examined  the representation as well as the opinion of the Advisory Board on June 30 and endorsed the file on July 1 to the Chief Minister who approved the detention
But the respondents have not explained their inaction during i the period of file days from June 5 to June 10 taken by the Home Department to send the representation to the District Magistrate for his comments ii the period of fourteen days from June 10 to June 24 taken by the District Magistrate to send his comments and iii the period of five days from June 24 to June 29 taken by the Home Department in placing the District Magistrate s comments before the Advisory Board and placing the matter before the Chief Minister
Thus the total period of inaction of the respon dents is twenty four days
The normal rule of law is that when a person commits an offence or a number of offences he should be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the normal appropriate criminal law but if he is sought to be detained under any of the preventive detention laws as may often be necessary to prevent further commission of such offences then the provisions of Article 225 must be complied with
Sub Article S of Article 22 reads When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention the authority making the order shall as soon as may be communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order This Sub Article provides inter alia that the detaining authority shall as soon as may be communicate the grounds of detention and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order
The opportunity of making a representation is not for nothing
The representation if any submitted by the detenu is meant for consideration by the Appropriate Authority 840 without any unreasonable delay as it involves the liberty of a citizen guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution
The non consideration or an unreasonably belated consideration of the representation tantamounts to non compliance of Sub Article 5 of Article 22 of the Constitution
The law is well settled that in case of preventive detention of a citizen the obligation of the appropriate government is two fold i to afford the detenu the opportunity to make a representation and to consider the representation which may result in the release of the detenu and ii to constitute a Board and to communicate the representation of the detenu along with other materials to the Board to enable it to form its opinion and to obtain such opinion
The former is distinct from the latter
As there is a two fold obligation of the appropriate government so there is a two fold right in favour of the detenu to have his representation considered by the appropriate government and to have the representation once again considered by the Government in the light of the circumstances of the case considered by the Board for the purpose of giving its opinion see 19792 SCR 3151 and  5
In the instant case the State Government did not discharge the first of the two fold obligation and waited till the receipt of the Advisory Board s opinion
There was as pointed out above an unexplained period of twenty four days of non consideration of the representation
This shows there was no independent consideration of the representation by the State Government
On the contrary they deferred its consideration till they received the report of the Advisory Board
This is clear non compliance of Article 22S as interpreted by this Court
The order of detention is therefore liable to be quashed on this ground alone
Mr Garg raised two other contentions before us namely i that the first two of the three grounds of detention were stale and the grounds showed no continuity of the alleged activities of the detenu and ii that the documents relied on by the detaining authority in the grounds were not furnished to the detenu
In view 841 of the fact that we are quashing the order of detention on the first ground we need not examine these two contentions
The petition is allowed
The order of detention is quashed
The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith
NVK Petition allowed


Summary:
The petitioner was detained under section 32 of the 
The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate on April 30 1981 and the grounds of detention were served on The petitioner on May 1 1981
The State Government approved the order of detention on May 7 1981 and referred the matter to the Advisory Board on May 19 1981
The petitioner submitted his representation against the detention on May 31 1981 and a copy of the same was sent to the Advisory Board
The Advisory Board by its report dated June 29 1981 gave its opinion that there was sufficient ground for detention
On receipt of the report the State Government confirmed the detention and directed detention of the petitioner for a period of one year
In the writ petition to this Court it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the State Government did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner and thereby violated Article 22 S of the Constitution
Allowing the writ petition
 HELD 1
The law is well settled that in case of preventive detention of a citizen the obligation of the appropriate Government is two fold i to afford the detenu the opportunity to make a representation and to consider the representation which may result in the release of the detenu and ii to constitute a Board and to communicate the representation of the detenu alongwith other materials to the Board lo enable it to form its opinion and to obtain such opinion
The former is distinct from the latter
As there is a two fold obligation of the appropriate government so there is a two fold right in favour of the detenu to have his representation considered by the appropriate government and to have the representation once again considered by the Government in the light of the circumstances of the case considered by the Board for the purpose of giving its opinion
840 B D In the instant case the State Government did not discharge the first of the two fold obligation and waited till the receipt of the Advisory Board s opinion
There was an unexplained period of twenty four days of non consideration of the 837 representation
This shows there was no independent consideration of the representation by the State Government on the contrary they deferred its consideration till they received the report of the Advisory Board
This is clear non compliance of article 22 S
The order of detention is therefore liable to be quashed
840E F 2
The normal rule of law is that when a person commits an offence or a number of offences he should be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the normal appropriate criminal law but if he is sought to be detained under any of the preventive detention laws as may often be necessary to prevent further commission of such offences then the provisions of Article 22 5 must be complied with
This sub article provides that the detaining authority shall as soon as maybe communicate the grounds of detention and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order The opportunity of making a representation is not for nothing
The representation if any submitted by the detenu is meant for consideration by the Appropriate Authority with out any unreasonable delay as it involves the liberty of a citizen guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution 839 E 840 A Narendra Purushotam Umrao etc
vs B B Gujral and ors
  and Pankaj Kumar Chakraborty and ors
vs State of West Bengal   referred to