ORDER : 1. This is a petition under S. 491, Criminal P. C. The applicant was detained in custody by an order made on 6-8-1949 by the Subha and District Magistrate of Indore District in exercise of the powers vested in him under S. 3 (2), Maintenance of Public Order Act (VII [7] of 1949). The Magistrate ordered his detention for a period of two months. 2. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Magistrate cannot order detention for a period of more than one month. In reply to this the learned Advocate-General submitted that the District Magistrate has also described himself as Subha in the order and the power has been vested in him under S. 11 of the Act to exercise the powers of the Government under S. 3 (1) of the aforesaid Act. This argument cannot prevail because the Subha and District Magistrate has expressly recorded in the order that he is making it in exercise of the powers vested in him by S. 3 (2) Maintenance of Public Order Act and under sub-s (2) the power is vested in the District Magistrate only. Therefore, Mr. Dube has acted as District Magistrate and not in exercise of the power delegated to him as Subha under S. 11 of the Act. In view of this, the detention in custody of the petitioner after 5-9-1919, should be declared to be illegal. 3. The second ground urged was that the grounds of detention as required by S. 5 of the Act had not been furnished to the detenu. The learned Advocate-General submitted that although the grounds were not separately furnished they are all recited in the order of detention itself and he was prepared to take his stand on the grounds as stated in the order. In the order it is not stated that that the detenu had the right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authority making the order. This duty is imposed in S. 5 of the Act on the authority making the order of detention. This duty not having been performed, the continued detention of the petitioner should be declared to be illegal. 4. There were more grounds taken and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner against his detention I do not propose to discuss these. This duty not having been performed, the continued detention of the petitioner should be declared to be illegal. 4. There were more grounds taken and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner against his detention I do not propose to discuss these. For the reasons given above, I hold that the detention of the petitioner has been illegal and he should be set at liberty forthwith.