IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1207 of 2010 RAM BILASH SINGH @ DOCTOR Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.SECR.DEPA. ----------- 03. 20.12.2010 The petitioner, Ram Bilash Singh @ Doctor has been detained in view of the Order of detention, issued by the District Magistrate, Begusarai, in exercise of powers under section 12 (2) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). The District Magistrate, Begusarai vide Order No. 1201, dated 16.08.2010, has detained the petitioner under section 12 of the Act without disclosing the period for which he has been detained. The grounds for detention has been issued vide Order No. 1202, dated 16.08.2010, in which two cases, i.e., Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 296 of 2009 instituted for offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 29 of 2010, instituted on 04.02.2010, for the offence, punishable under Sections 324, 307, 120 (B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, have been considered as grounds for detention. The detention Order was communicated to 2 the petitioner through Superintendent of Jail, Begusarai and the petitioner submitted his representation before the Respondent State through the Superintendent of Jail, Begusarai on 04.09.2010. In his representation, the petitioner stated that the two cases, which have been taken as grounds for his detention, in fact were instituted against him, because of village rivalry. In Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 296 of 2009, he has been granted bail by the District & Sessions Judge, Begusarai on 15.04.2010. In other case, i.e., Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 29 of 2010 also, he is on bail and the matter is pending for trial. Some of the cases, which have been taken as his criminal history: in one of such case, i.e., Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 425 of 2003, he has been acquitted by the Trial Court; Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 437 of 2003 was instituted against unknown, but he was falsely been implicated during investigation; Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 34 of 2005, he has been acquitted; and so far Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 39 of 2005 is concerned, it is for the offence under the Arms Act, in which he is on bail. In Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 289 of 2005, he has been acquitted. The representation filed by the 3 petitioner on 04.09.2010, is still pending. In the writ application there is no such statement whether the Order of detention dated 16.08.2010 was approved by the State Governemnt within the mandatory period, as provided under the Act. There is no statement whether the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board within the time provided under section 19 of the Act. It has also not been mentioned whether the Order of detention has been confirmed, but order of confirmation under section 21 of sub-section 2 with section 22 of the Act, dated 25.10.2010, has been annexed as Annexure-6. Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, Begusarai, wherein it has been stated that the Order of detention of the petitioner was passed by him being fully satisfied with the recommendation report of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai, contained in letter no. 5115, dated 19.07.2010. The Order of detention has been approved by the State Government under section 12(3) of the Act and thereafter receiving the recommendation of Advisory Board, the detention order has been confirmed under section 21 and 22 of the Act. It has been stated in 4 paragraph 6 of the Counter Affidavit that petitioner has been detained on the basis of recent two cases, i.e, Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 296 of 2009 and Barauni Refinery P. S. Case No. 29 of 2010. These two cases were instituted on 01.10.2009 and 04.02.2010. The detention order has been passed on 16.08.2010. In between 04.02.2010 and 16.08.2010, there is no such incident at the instance of the petitioner, which can be considered as threat to the public order. In this view, the detention order was on stale ground, which in itself is sufficient for quashing of the initial detention order dated 16.08.2010 as well as order of confirmation dated 25.10.2010. In the Counter Affidavit, there is no statement that the representation dated 04.09.2010, submitted by the petitioner before the State Authorities, has been disposed of and its result has been communicated to the petitioner. In paragraph 12 of the Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that there is no statutory provision of law that delay in sending representation petition or consideration, render the detention order void. This statement is completely against the provisions under the Act. The detenue has 5 a constitutional right to represent against the order of detention. Only on consideration of representation and its disposal by reasoned order, within the specified time, the State Government can proceed for confirmation of the detention order. The silence of the Respondent in the matters of disposal of representation is indicative of this fact that without considering the representation of the petitioner, the order of confirmation has been passed by the State Government. This illegality is also one of the grounds for quashing of the order of detention as well as order, confirming the detention order. Though in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the District Magistrate, Begusarai has passed order after his full application of mind, but considering the manner in which the detention order as well as confirmation order, has been passed, there is total non-application of mind. The order of detention has been passed completely ignoring the provisions under the Act. The criminal cases, which are taken as a ground for detention, do not indicate that the petitioner is a habitual offender and his activities are detrimental to public order. 6 For the reasons, stated above, the order of detention, contained in Order No. 1201, dated 16.08.2010, passed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai as well as the order of confirmation passed by the State Government under section 21 sub- section 2, read with section 22, of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, dated 26.08.2010, contained in Order No. 7/CCA-1065/2010 H(P)-8771, are quashed. The writ application is allowed. The petitioner, Ram Bilash Singh @ Doctor is directed to be released forthwith, if not required to be custody in connection with any other case. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)