Judgment Birendra Prasad Sinha, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sudhir Kumar Sinha has challenged his detention under the Bihar Control or Crimes Act 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate Hazaribagh respondent No. 2 under Sub-clause 2 of Sec.12 of the Act on 26-3-1982. The grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner on 28-3-82 as continued in Annexure-1/A. The detention order was approved by the Government on 3rd of April, 1982 by Annexure 2 on 25-4-1982 the petitioner made a representation is contained in Annexure 6. The petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board on 30-4-1982 and the Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 21(1) read with Sec.22 of the Act, confirmed the detention order and ordered that the petitioner shall remain detention till 25th of March 1983. The order of the Government is dated 25th of May 1982 and was served upon the petitioner on 30th May 1982. Although the order dated 26th of May 1982 is not made a part of the application but the original copy thereof, which was produced before us at the time of hearing. 2. Mr. S.B. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on various grounds. He first contended that the presentation of the petitioner filed on 25-4-1982 was not considered by the Government at all and the order of detention should be set aside on this ground alone. In paragraphs 27 and 28 of the petition it has been stated that the petitioner sent his representation to the Secretary, Department of Home (Police) Government of Bihar on 25th April 1982. It is further stated that no decision on his representation was communicated to him until 14th May 1982 on which date his writ application was filed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, respondent No. 1 which has been sworn by one Ram Sihasan Prasad Sinha, an Assistant in the Home (Police) Department, State of Bihar, Patna. It is a very short and cryptic counter-affidavit which consists of ten paragraphs and in it, it is stated that the facts stated in the counter-affidavit are true to his knowledge derived from the records of this case. It is a very short and cryptic counter-affidavit which consists of ten paragraphs and in it, it is stated that the facts stated in the counter-affidavit are true to his knowledge derived from the records of this case. The allegation made in paragraph 28, referred to above, has not been transverse. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the State Government referred the case of the petitioner in accordance with Sec.19 of the Act on 10-4-1982 and the representation of the detenue was placed before the Advisory Board for consideration. In paragraph 6 it is stated that on 30th of April 1982, the Advisory Board heard the petitioner personally and considered all the papers and materials, opined on 30th of April, 1982 that there exist sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner and the Advisory Board submitted the report on 30th of April 1982 to the Government. In Paragraph 7 it is stated that the State Government in exercise of the powers under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act confirmed the detention order and ordered that the detenus shall be detained till 25th of March 1983. It is no where stated that the representation of the petitioner was considered by the State Government. From the counter-affidavit it appears that representation was considered by the Advisory Board and the detention order was confirmed by the Government on the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board. In the case of Dr. Rahamatullah V/s. State of Bihar and Anr. -- it was held that in case of preventive detention of a citizen, the obligation of the appropriate government is two-fold (i) to afford the detenu the opportunity to take a representation and to consider the representation which may result in the release of the detenu, and (ii) to constitute a Board and to communicate the representation of the detenu along with other materials to the Board to enable it to form its opinion and to obtain such opinion. The former is distinct from the latter. The former is distinct from the latter. As there is a two-fold obligation of the appropriate Government, so there is two-fold right in favor of the detenue to have his representation considered by the appropriate government and to have the representation once again considered by the Government in the light, of the circumstances of the case considered by the Board for the purpose of giving its opinion." Article 22(5) of the Constitution provides that the detaining authority shall as soon as may be communicated the grounds of detention and shall afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The opportunity of making a representation is not for nothing. It is meant for consideration by the appropriate authority without unreasonable delay. The non-consideration or unreasonably belated consideration of the representation tantamount to non-compliance of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. In the case of Dr. Rahamatullah (supra) as in this case, the State Government seems to have waited till the receipt of the Advisory Boards opinion and confirmed the detention order on 30th May 1982. Thus, there was a delay of one month and five days from the date of making the representation. Nothing has been placed before us on behalf of the respondents to show that there was any independent consideration of the representation by the State Government. Thus by itself it is a clear violation of Articles 22(5) of the constitution. It is now well settled that the representation has to be considered by the Government without reasonable, without waiting for the opinion of the Advisory Board. Reference may be made to the case of Ashok Kumar V/s. State of J. and K. 1981 Vol. II S.C.C. 73 and to the case of Harish Pahwa V/s. State of U.P. and Ors. 1981 Vol. II S.C.C. 710. 3. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was unreasonable and unexplained delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner. As stated above, the representation was made on 25-4-1982 and seems to have been finally disposed of on 26-5-1982 when the order was confirmed by the State Government under 5ections 21 and 22 of the Act. Thus, even if, it is assumed that the representation was considered by the State Government after the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the same was done after a month. Thus, even if, it is assumed that the representation was considered by the State Government after the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the same was done after a month. In the case of Shri Salesh Mohammad V/s. Union of India and Ors.1980 Vol. IV S.C.C. 428 a delay of 22 days was considered too fatal. In the case of Shrimati Icchu Devi Choiaria V/s. Union of India and Ors. 1980 Vol. IV S.C.C. 531 and in the cases of Gurdeep Singh V/s. Union of India -- a delay of 29 days in consideration of the representation was considered to be fatal. The liberty of an individual is precious and is one of the fundamental tenants of our Constitution. Where it is sought to be curtailed under a law of preventive detention, the representation, if any, made by the detenu must be attended to be dealt with and considered with such care and reasonable promptitude. Failure on the part of the detaining authority to consider the detenus representation without unreasonable delay is sufficient to vitiate the detention order. On this ground also, the order of detention in the present case has got to be set aside. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner then submitted that the material document upon which the order of detention is based, were not supplied by the detenu to enable him to make an effective representation and that also has vitiated the detention order. He relied upon the decisions in Mohammad Zakir v. Delhi Administration and Ors. -- and Baldeo Raj Khanna V/s. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and Ors. 1981 B.L.T. 191 and the case of Mohammad Zakir (supra) it was observed by the Supreme Court that "it is the constitutional mandate which requires the detaining authority to give the documents relied on or referred to in the order of detention pari passu the grounds of detention in order that the detenu may make an effective representation immediately instead of waiting for the documents to be supplied with. "It was further observed that the question of demanding the documents was wholly irrelevant. "It was further observed that the question of demanding the documents was wholly irrelevant. Similarly, in the case of Icchu ,Devi V/s. Choraria (supra) it was held that in order to enable the detenu to make an effective representation against his detention, the detaining authority must keep copies of the documents and other materials relied upon or referred to in the grounds of detention and supply the same to the detenu. This right flows directly as a necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenu to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention, because unless the former right is available the latter cannot be, meaning fully exercised. It was held that the documents, statements and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention should be furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention to satisfy the requirements of Article 22(5) of the constitution. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of 1981, Baldeo Raj Khanna (supra). 5. So far grounds Nos. 1, 2 and 3 concerned, the petitioner was not named in the first information report. Ground No. 2 relates to an incident dated 25-1-1982 under Sec.392 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is said to have been identified in Test Identification Parade in this case. The Test Identification Chart was not supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. Ground No. 1 relates to an incident of 7-5-1981 in which the petitioner along with others has been charge-sheet under Sec.394 of the Indian Penal Code. Copy of the charge sheet was not supplied to the petitioner along with grounds of detention. Grounds No. 3 relates to an incident of 1-2-1982, under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code in which it is stated that during the investigation, it was found that the petitioner had participated in the occurrence but the witness did not identify him due to fear. The statements implicating the petitioner in the offence made by the witnesses were not supplied to the petitioner. In this respect it was asserted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not put on any test identification parade and this assertion remains uncontroversial in the counter-affidavit. Ground No. 4 relates to an incident of 2-2-1982, under Sections 379, 341, 347 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In this respect it was asserted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not put on any test identification parade and this assertion remains uncontroversial in the counter-affidavit. Ground No. 4 relates to an incident of 2-2-1982, under Sections 379, 341, 347 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that during the investigation some properties were recovered and the petitioner and others were arrested. No seizure list was supplied to the petitioner in respect of this case along with the grounds of detention. As has been held by the Supreme Court in the above cases the petitioner was entitled to the supply of the documents referred to above for the purpose of making an effective representation that not having been done, the order of detention must be held to be bad and volatile of mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 6. It is possible that a person against whom serious allegations have been made is able to escape detention on these grounds. But for that, the authorities concerned have to think themselves. Preventive detention is an area where the Court has been most strict and scrupulous in ensuring observance with the requirements of the law, and even where a requirement of law is breached in the slightest measure, the Court has not hesitated to strike down the order of detention regardless of the social costs involved, in the release of a possible offender It has been repeatedly stressed by the Supreme Court that the burden of showing that the detention is in accordance with the procedure established by law is always on the detaining authority because of the clear and explicit terms of Article 21 of the Constitution. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to raise some other questions in the present case but it not necessary to deal with them. The order of detention has got to be set aside for the reasons stated above. 8. This application for Habeas Corpus is, accordingly allowed. The order of detention is set aside. Let the writ of habeas corpur be issued directing the release of the petitioner from the detention forthwith, if not wanted many other case.