IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1088 of 2010 MAHESH SAW @ MAHESH KUMAR SAW @ KALA NAG Son of Late Mahadeo Saw, resident of Village- Naya Bazar Asthan Gali, P.S. Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai. -----------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Department of Home (Police) through its Principal Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary Deptt. of Home (Police) Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Under Secretary Deptt. of Home Police Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. 6. The Superintendent of Police Lakhisarai. 7. The Superintendent of Jail, Lakhisarai. 8. The Dy S.P. Lakhisarai. ----------------Respondents. -------------- 4. 29.11.2010 The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing of the order dated 30.8.2010 contained in Memo No. 496 issued by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai whereby he has passed an order for detention of the petitioner in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. Further prayer of the petitioner is that for quashing of the order passed by the under Secretary Department of Home Police Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no. 4) confirming the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai under Section 12 (2) of the Bihar Crime Control Act, 1981. By this the order of detention passed by the District 2 Magistrate has been confirmed. The detention order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that in total non observance of the provisions under the Act, the petitioner has been kept under detention by the respondent. The provisions under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act for detaining any person are mandatory in nature as such whenever any order of detention is passed the respondents are duty bound to take steps within the time specified as provided under the Act. The District Magistrate being the head of the district has been delegated powers under Section 12 and in exercise of that he can pass an order of detention under Section 12 (2) not beyond the period of three months. The detention in first round may not continue beyond three months unless there is approval of the State Government under Section 12 (3), granting extension of that period. Further, it is required that once there is approval of the State Government relating to the detention order, the detenue must be produced before the Advisory Board within three weeks of detention. If it is not done, the detention order is completely without jurisdiction. It is also a mandatory requirement that once detention order has been passed, immediately it should be furnished to the detenue giving an opportunity to represent before the concerned, 3 authorities, challenging the order of detention and the representation so filed by the detenue must be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order preferably within two weeks of its filing in the present case. None of the provision had been observed, even the representation filed by the petitioner on 20.9.2010, forwarded to the State authorities on 29.9.2010. Annexure-1 was finally rejected on 16.11.2010 on that very date the order of detention was also confirmed by respondent no. 4 and thereafter it was communicated to the petitioner. Both the orders, that is the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the order conforming the order of the detention were communicated to the petitioner on the same date. This is completely in violations of the mandatory provisions of the Act, as well as provisions under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The order of representation of the petitioner was rejected without assigning any reason for rejection. The statement made by the petitioner in the writ application has not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. There is completely no denial of the allegations made by the petitioners. However, it has been submitted in the 4 counter affidavit that the approval of the State Government was well within time and the petitioner was also produced before the Advisory Board as the time specified under the Act. But there is no denial of this fact that representation of the petitioner was not considered within the time specifically provided under the Act and also it cannot be denied that no reason has been assigned by the representation for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Considering all these facts we are of the view that the way, detention orders has been passed by the authorities, without observing the mandatory provisions under the Act, In all the cases it may without completely illegal and without jurisdiction leaving with no other option and to quash the order of detention. Accordingly, the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhisharai and the order of confirmation passed by respondent no. 4 dated 16.11.2010 are quashed. This writ application is allowed. Anand Kr. (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)