IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.414 of 2009 Indradeo Yadav @ Malkhan Singh son of late Saryug Yadav, resident of Village-Daulatpur, Police Station and District- Jamui --- --- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary of Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The I.G. (Prison), Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director (Prison), Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Jamui. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Jamui 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jamui 8. The Jail Superintendent, Jamui -------------- Respondents. ---------- 4. 20.7.2009 Heard Mr. Ambika Bhagat for the petitioner, and Mr. Ram Bilash Mahto, learned Additional Advocate General No.8. The petitioner has been detained for a period of one year under the provisions of the Bihar Crime Control Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟). The respondents have placed on record two sets of counter affidavits and have supported the impugned action. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The basic facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition are not in dispute and may briefly be indicated. The order of detention is dated 4.8.2008 (Annexure-2). Copy of the same was served on the petitioner on 6.8.2008, in terms of section 12(2) of the Act. The same was approved by the State Government on 14.8.2008, in terms of section 12(3) of the Act. By order dated 22.8.2008, the same was referred to the Advisory Board. The order of detention was confirmed by the Advisory Board on 11.9.2008. Consequently the State Government confirmed the 2 detention order on 25.9.2008 in terms of section 21 read with section 22 of the Act. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not supplied with the requisite papers to enable him to submit effective representation. It appears to us on a perusal of photo copy of the order of detention dated 4.8.2008, that the same records the following acknowledgment: ”,d izfr ik;k A vuqyXud (42) fo;kyhl iUuk ds lkFk A bUnznso ;kno mQZ ey[kku flag 6&8&08” It appears to us that the petitioner was served with a copy of the order of detention along with annexures in total covering 42 pages. It thus appears to us that all the requisite papers were supplied to the petitioner and he has acknowledged receipt of the same by putting his own signature. He is obviously trying to make out a non- existent ground before this Court. The grievance is stated as follows in paragraph 16 of the writ petition : “16. That it is much relevant to state here that the State Government has not served the entire papers to the petitioner who is in jail custody and the deponent has no knowledge about the law.” The writ petition does not acknowledge receipt of the aforesaid documents, is obviously resorting to falsehood, and trying to mislead this Court. No case for non-supply of essential documents has been made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)