IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.549 of 2011 Dharmendra Mahto@ Dharmendra Nonia, son of Dharikshan Mahto, resident of Phulwarisharif, Sangatpar, Police Station Phulwarisharif, District-Patna. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Under Secretary, Home Police Department, Govt. of Bihar. 3. The District Magistrate, Patna. 4. The Senior Police Superintendent, Patna. 5. Sub-divisional Police officer, Phulwarisharif, Patna. …..Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R. Raman, GP-23. ----------- 05/ 04.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has come here for quashing the Notification No. 7/CCA- 1050/2010H(P)6836 dated 19.08.2010 contained in Annexure-5 by which the detention of the petitioner passed by the respondent no. 3 under Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 has been confirmed under Section 21(1) read with Section 22 of the aforesaid Act by respondent no. 2 and the petitioner has been ordered to remain in detention till 06.07.2011. The respondent no.5 vide his Letter No. 2103 of 2010 dated 09.06.2010 through respondent no. 4 to respondent no. 2 3 made recommendation to detain the petitioner under Section 12 (2) of the Crime Control Act, 1981 giving the criminal history of the petitioner. The order of detention under Section 12 (25) of the Act was made on 07.07.2010 (Annexure-1) and copy (Annexure-3) was served on the same day. After few days i.e. on 20.07.2010, the petitioner represented through the Superintendent of Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna to respondent no.3. Altogether eight cases were mentioned in Annexure-1. The cases were under Sections 394, 395, 386, 307, 302 and some other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has grievance that his representation was rejected after a gap of more than a month and there is no explanation to that. Reliance has been placed on some judgments to show that in case of preventive detention the authorities have to apply their minds without delay and the purpose of the Act should not be allowed to be frustrated by the authorities who have to dispose of the representation. Attention has also been 3 drawn towards the statement in para-10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has filed a representation against the detention order dated 28.07.2010 which was received in the department along with the comments of the District Magistrate, Patna on 16.08.2010 vide Letter No. 2141 dated 14.10.2010. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the representation of the petitioner was sent to and examined by the State Government at different levels Under Secretary, Chief Secretary, Home Secretary and finally Hon’ble the Chief Minister and this was communicated to the petitioner. It has been urged that due to procedural matters there was delay and this delay was not such which would defeat the ends of justice. We have analyzed the entire situation. No doubt, there appears some delay in disposal of the representation but there are other facts which are available with the present case. The detention of the petitioner is only for two days more and it 4 is going to expire, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by allowing this petition. All the antecedents of eight cases mentioned in the notice speak a volume about the petitioner. He is accused in cases under Sections 394, 395, 307, 302, 386 and some other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Offences are in continuation. Considering the facts we are of the view that order under challenge does not require interference of this Court and hence the petition is dismissed. if this petition is disposed of holding the detention order because all the antecedents mentioned of the petitioner which speak a volume about itself. Considering the fact that the order under challenge is not entertainable and hence this petition is dismissed. kksinha/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)