Judgment Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J. By this application, petitioner Dilip Singh challenges the validity of his detention in consequence of the order of the State Government dated 3.8.1984 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition) in exercise of powers conferred under Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (Bihar Act, 7 of 1981). By this order the petitioner has been ordered to remain in detention till 8.6.1985. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 9.6.84, by which the District Magistrate, Purnea, had passed the order of detention under section 12(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act. 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This order dated 9.6.84, referred to above, was approved by the State Government on 19.6.84 (vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition) It was only after the confirmation by the State Government of the order dated 9.6.84, referred to above, that the main impugned order of the State Government dated 3.8.84 (Acnexure-18 to the writ petition) was passed by which the petitioner was ordered to remain in detention till 8.6.1985. 3 The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the grounds communicated to him by Memo No, 2447/C dated 9.6.84. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 19.6.84, by which the State Government had approved the detention order passed on 9.6.84 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by the District Magistrate, Purnea, under section 12(1) of the Act. The petitioner has also challenged the recommendation of the Advisory Board, which had approved the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea. 4 Though, the petitioner by this application has challenged the aforesaid orders but the main challenge is with regard to the validity of petitioner's detention till 8.6.85, passed by the State Government on 3.8.84 (Annexure-18) in exercise of powers conferred by section 21(1) read with section 22 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very rightly contended that if the court felt satisfied that this order (Annexure-18) was infirm and illegal in that case all other orders would automatically fall to the ground Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only two points. The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that if the earlier detention order dated 3.6.84 (by Memo No. 2374-in Case No.1 of Case No. Offence. 1. K. Hat P.S. Case No. 12/81 . Sec. 379, 323 I.P.C. 2. K. Hat P.S. Case No. 127/81. The first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that if the earlier detention order dated 3.6.84 (by Memo No. 2374-in Case No.1 of Case No. Offence. 1. K. Hat P.S. Case No. 12/81 . Sec. 379, 323 I.P.C. 2. K. Hat P.S. Case No. 127/81. Sec. 395 I.P.C. 3. K. Hat P.S. Case No. 308/81. Sec. 147, 323, 342, 309 I.P.C. 4. K. Hat P.S. Case No. 470/81. Sec. 25(A) & 26 Arms Act. 5. K. Hat P.S. Case No. 180/82, Sec, 448, 323, 324, 309 I.P.C. 6. K. Hat P.S. Case No. 215/82. Sec. 341, 323, 309 I.P.C. 7. K. Hat P.S. Case No. 223/82. Sec. 342, 323, 307 I.P.C. 1984) (Annexure-3 to the writ Petition) paned by the District Magistrate, Purnes, stating also the grounds, was revoked by the District Magistrate, Purnea, by his subsequent order dated 9.6.84 (Annexure - 6), the very same ground a could not be med in the eye of law as grounds for fresh detention and as the grounds for passing ultimate Impugned order (Annexure-18) were not fresh facts (as envisaged under section 23(2) of the Act) after the date of revocation (i.e. after 9.6.84), fresh detention order (Annexure-18) was wholly illegal and was fit to be quashed. 6. The second limb or submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be taken to be one of the grounds for detention in the eye of law. 7. No other point was raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In order to appreciate the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is essential to state a few relevant facts. 9. Short of other details, in 1981-82, a few criminal cases were launched against the petitioner as below: 10. According to the petitioner the aforesaid criminal cases were covered within the ambit of Jaw and order and as such. attempt of the District Magistrate, Purnea, initiating a proceeding under section 3 of the Act, was nit approved by the State Government and the petitioner's detention under section 3 of the Act, was revoked. According to the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Purnea, having failed in his first attempt made another attempt to detain the petitioner under section 3 of the Act, in Case No. 11 of 1983. According to the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Purnea, having failed in his first attempt made another attempt to detain the petitioner under section 3 of the Act, in Case No. 11 of 1983. and in this case 7 criminal cases were mentioned, some, of which, according to the petitioner, were the part of the first detention order and only two cases of the year 1983 and one proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were included as fresh grounds. The petitioner was taken into custody in connection with Case No. 11 of 1983, just mentioned above, while he was already in jail in connection with Khazanchi Hat P. S. Case No. 135/83. On being released in the aforesaid Khazanchi Hat P.S. case by the order of the Sessions Judge, Purnea, the petitioner was served with a copy of the notice under section 3 of the Act, and was remanded in custody in connection with Case No. 11 or 1983 on 20. 5. 83 (vide Annexure - l to the writ petition). The petitioner thereafter filed a criminal writ case numbered as Cr.W.J.C. No. 197 of 1983 in this Court in which bail was granted and the petitioner was released from custody on 5.7.1983, after furnishing bail bond to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Purnea. This criminal writ case, just referred to above, was finally disposed of by this Court on 5.10.83, in which this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the authorities concerned and co-operate in the disposal of pending case. This Court also directed the authorities to supply copies of all the relevant documents and dispose of the proceeding pending in Case no. 11/83. In the instant writ application the petitioner has complained that despite the petitioner remaining present on a number of dates, the authorities had not supplied the relevant documents and have been adjourning the case from one date to another. And, as it seems from the averment of facts in the instant writ application, the aforesaid case no. 11 of 1983 is still pending. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the Course of his submissions, has informed this Court that the same has been dropped on 6.8.84. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with that case in the instant writ application. The facts relevant to the present case starts now. 11 of 1983 is still pending. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the Course of his submissions, has informed this Court that the same has been dropped on 6.8.84. Be that as it may, we are not concerned with that case in the instant writ application. The facts relevant to the present case starts now. The petitioner was arrested on 31.5.84, and, according to the petitioner, there was no warrant pending against him yet he was arrested on the order of the District Magistrate, Purnea, and was sent to jail on 1.6.84. 11. On 3. 6. 1984, the District Magistrate, Purnea, vested with the powers under section 12 (2) of the Act, Passed an order of detention of the petitioner for a period of three months with effect from 1.6.1984. and also served the petitioner in jail the grounds of detention. It is very relevant to quote there grounds of detention (vide order dated 3.6.84) which were server' upon the petitioner in jail on that very day. "Grounds of detention of Sri Dilip Singh s/o Bhim Singh of village Chandwa, P.S. Meerganj District Purnea at present Durgabari, Bhatta Bazar, P.S.K. Hat, District Purnea u/s 12 (2) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (Bihar Act, 7 of 1981) hereinafter called the ‘Act’. 1. That on 7.2.81 you along with one of your accomplices and others stopped Bus Bus No. BHQ 9564 plying on Birpur Patna road and on refusal of the Conductor of the Bus to pay any ‘Chanda') you along with your accomplices assaulted him and took away the wrist-watch, spectacle and Rs. 5/-from the person of the Conductor. K. Hat P.S. Case no 12 dt. 7.2.81 u/s 379/323 I.P.C. 2. That on 30 6.81 you along with your nine accomplices stopped one Jeep bearing No, BRK 8391. You with the help of your accomplice took away forcibly Rs.150/- from the person of Surya Narain Singh the Driver of the Jeep and pushed the said Jeep to a nearby ditch (K. Hat P.S. Case No. 308/81 dt. 30.6.81 u/s 147/342/323/379 I.P.C. 3. That on 11.11.81 S.I.K.N. Mishra of K.Hat P.S. upon confidential information raided the premises of one Nitya Chandra Bhattacharya of Bhatta Sheopuri Mohalla, P.S.K. Hat. Purnea and during raid one country made Pistol was recovered from the bed upon which you along with your accomplices were found sitting and talking in a room. 30.6.81 u/s 147/342/323/379 I.P.C. 3. That on 11.11.81 S.I.K.N. Mishra of K.Hat P.S. upon confidential information raided the premises of one Nitya Chandra Bhattacharya of Bhatta Sheopuri Mohalla, P.S.K. Hat. Purnea and during raid one country made Pistol was recovered from the bed upon which you along with your accomplices were found sitting and talking in a room. (K. Hat P. S. Case No. 471/81 dt. 11.11.81). 4. On 8.6.82 you along with one Sunil Kumar Singh of Madbubani Gandhi Nagar and others entered illegally the office of Manager, Chitrabani Cinema, Purnea at about 2.45 P.M. You along with your associates forcibly deprived the Manager of the Cinema Darned Sri Upendra Pd. Singh of cash amounting to about Rs. 1800/-. When the said Manager put up some resistance, you assaulted him with a knife which hit the Manager on the forehead (K. Hat P.S. Case No. 180/82 dt. 8.6.82 u/s 448/323/324/379 I.P.C.) 5. On 10.7.82 about 8 P.M. you along with your associates near Kalibari Chowk deprived Anil Kumar a second year student of Prurnea Polytecnic of his wrist-watch and a golden ring. You also threatened him that he would be killed In case he dared to report the incident to the Police. (K. Hat P.S. Case no. 215/82 dt. 10.7.82 u/s 341/323/379 I.P.C.) 6. On 17.7.82 at 3 P.M. near Purnea Agrawal Market you along with your associates assulted one Murari Singh of Ufrail, P.S. Basiaithi (Raniganj), District Purnea at present Sipahi Tola, Madhubani, P.S.K. Hat. One of your accomplices assaulted Murari Singh and you fired a shot from your Pistol at him injuring him on the left side of the Chest. (K. Hat P. S. Case No. 223/82 dt. 18.7.82 u/s 342/323/307 I.P.C. & 27 Arms Act). 7. On 29. 3. 83 at 5 P. M. you along with your nine associates all being armed with pistol, revolvers and daggers went on Motor Cycles to the house of one Mishari Azad Choudhary of Rajni Chowk. Bhatta Bazar, Purnea and illegally entered into his house, abused him and forcibly took away one Kajal wrist-watch worth Rs. 600/-, one gold chain of 1½ Tolas worth Rs. 3000/- and cash amounting to Rs 350/-from his Brief Case. (K. Hat P.S. Case No. 116/83 dt. 29.3.83 U/s 144/448/380 I.P.C). 8. Bhatta Bazar, Purnea and illegally entered into his house, abused him and forcibly took away one Kajal wrist-watch worth Rs. 600/-, one gold chain of 1½ Tolas worth Rs. 3000/- and cash amounting to Rs 350/-from his Brief Case. (K. Hat P.S. Case No. 116/83 dt. 29.3.83 U/s 144/448/380 I.P.C). 8. On 10-4-83 at 8 A.M. while One Rohit Yadav of Bhatta Bazar, P.S.K. Hat, Purnea was going to take tea near Lakhan Chowk, you along with your associates Raj kumar Dubey, and Body Ghosh committed murderous attack' on him by firing shots from Pistols and thereby caused bullet injuries On his persons. (K. Hat P.S. case No. 135/83 dt. 10-4-83, u/s 307 I.P.C. & u/s 25 (A) & 26 arms Act). 9. On 26-10-83 in broad day light you with the help of your accomplices kidnapped a minor girl kumari Mamta Ghosh by forcibly lifting her in a car for immoral purposes. (K. Hat P. S. Case No. 395/83 dt. 26-10-83 u/s 363/ 366 I.P.C.). 10. On 15-3-84 at about 10 A.M. while Sri Ashok Kumar Ghosh of south Bhatta Bazar, P.S.K. Hat. Purnea was taking tea at Lakhan Chowk you along with your associates reached there, assaulted him, threw away hot tea upon his face and took out Rs 450/- from his pocket of the shirt. (K. Hat P.S. case No. 81/84 dated 15-3-84 u/s 341/379/323 I.P.C.) 11. On 9-3-84 at about 12 A.M. you along with your associates stopped Bus no, B.R.J. 1327 of one Ashok Kumar Ghosh of Bhatta Bazar, Purnea, in front of old Petrol Pump to the west of Khuskibagh P.S. Sadar, Purnea. You at the point of revolver called all the staffs of the Busrat Petrol Pump and threatened them to put them in the Bus and to set fire in it if they would drive the Bus and work in it, (K. Hat P. S. Case No. 51/84 u/s 341/504 I.P.C.). 12. On 17-4-84 at about 4 P.M. while one Subhas Kumar Ghosh went on his Motor Cycle bearing No. B.R.K. 7947 to see one wooden bridge near Supni Hat, P.S. Sadar, Purnea, if it was fit for plying Bus, you along with your three associates reached there on two motor cycles, one of red colour hearing No. B.H.K. 2287 and another of black colour without number. One of your associate named Raj Kumar Dubey snatched away wrist-watch worth Rs. One of your associate named Raj Kumar Dubey snatched away wrist-watch worth Rs. 659/-from the hand of Subhas Kumar Ghosb at the point of his revolver and whereas you fled away with the motor-cycle of the laid Subhas Kumar Ghosh, you and your accomplices threatened Subhas Kumar Ghosh to kill him if he would inform the police about the incident (K. Hat P.S. Case No. 79/84 dt. 17-4-84 U/s 392 I.P.C.) 13. On account of the criminal activities and finding apprehension of breach of peace a report for action u/s 107 Cr. P. C. was submitted by K. Hat. P.S. on 1-4-83 to the S.D.O. Sadar, against you and your associates as 2nd party and Rohit Yadav and his associates as 1st party (vide K. Hat. P.S. Non-F.I.R. No. 21/83 dated 1-4-83. sd/- District Magistrate Purnea. If you like, representation, in duplicate, may be submitted to Joint Secretary to Government of Bihar, Home (Police) Department, Patna through the District Magistrate, Purnea. 12. From the above, it would appear that there were 13 grounds for detention of the petitioner-vide order of the District Magistrate dated 3-6-84 (by Memo No. 2374 ). 13. It would not have been the necessity of quoting these grounds in extenso but for the facts that these very grounds have been made the basis for the petitioner's present detention in jail culminating in the impugned order dated 3-1-84 (Annexure-18). 14. Before I discuss the legal impact of repeating the very same grounds for fresh detention, it is essential to state a few more facts. 15. This order (Annexure-3) with the grounds quoted in extenso just above, was revoked by the District Magistrate, Purnea by his order dated 9-6-84 unequivocally and without any vagueness. This order dated 9.6.84, passed by the District Magistrate. Purnea, is categorical, positive and unequivocal and is not amenable to any other interpretation except that the earlier order passed by him dated 3-6-84 (Annexure-3) fell to the ground without any rider. 6. It is very relevant to quote this order of revocation passed by the District Magistrate, as the main submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is founded on this order of revocation (Annexure.6). 6. It is very relevant to quote this order of revocation passed by the District Magistrate, as the main submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is founded on this order of revocation (Annexure.6). ftyk n.Mkkf/kdkjh dk dk;kZy;] iwf.kZ;k¡] izsf”kr%& Jh fnfyi flag] firk Jh Hkhe flag] f’koiqjh] HkV~Vk cktkj] Fkkuk&[kkt¡kph gkV] ftyk iwf.kZ;k¡] esjs Kkikad „…‰† lhŒ fnukad …ƒˆƒŠ† }kjk ikfjr fuj~n~/k vkns’k izfrlag~r fd;k tkrk gSA ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh iwf.kZ;k¡ ‰&‰ The petitioner in paragraph 14 of his petition though has averred that the aforesaid order of detention dated 3.6.84 was not approved by the competent authority of the State Government and was ordered to be revoked by its letter no. 6683 dated 6.6.84, this letter of the State Government is not on the record of the brief. However, the fact remains, as already stated above, the order of detention dated 3.6.84 (Annexure-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea (the grounds of which have been quoted in extenso above) was revoked by the District Magistrate Purnea, himself by his order dated 9.6.84 (Annexure-6). 17. Having already revoked the earlier order of detention dated 3.6.84 (Annexure - 3), by his order dated 9.6.84 (Annexure 6), the District Magistrate, Purnea, on the very same day, most surprisingly, issued another order contained in Memo No. 2446 (dated 9.6.84) and passed order of detention of the petitioner under section 12(1) of the Act, The District Magistrate. Purnea, passed the following order :- Order No. 2446/C Dated 9.6.84. Where as I am satisfied that with a view to preventing Sri Dilip Singh s/o Sri Bhim Singh of village Chandwa, P.S., Mirganj (Dhamdaha). District Purnea, present address Mohalla Shibpuri, Bhatta Bazar, P.S. Khazanchi Hat, District Purnea from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public order, it is necessary to make an order that he be detained. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. I hereby direct that the said Dilip Singh be detained, He shall be placed in detention in Purnea District Jail and classified as - division. Sd/. District Magistrate. Purnea." 18. On the same day the District Magistrate issued another order contained in Momo No. 2447/C in which the grounds were disclosed for detention. I hereby direct that the said Dilip Singh be detained, He shall be placed in detention in Purnea District Jail and classified as - division. Sd/. District Magistrate. Purnea." 18. On the same day the District Magistrate issued another order contained in Momo No. 2447/C in which the grounds were disclosed for detention. For the purpose of appreciating the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is very relevant to quote the grounds for detention of the petitioner by Memo No. 2447/C dated 9.6.84 served on the petitioner in jail. "OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNEA. ORDER Memo No. 2447/C, Dated, the 9th June, 1984 Shri Dilip Singh s/o Shri Bhim Singh of village Chandwa, P.S. Mirganj (Dhamdaha), District-Purnea at present Shibpuri, Batta Bazar, P.S. Khazanchi Hat District - Purnea is hereby informed that under section 12(1) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, he has been ordered to be detained vide my order no. 2564/C dated 9.6.84 On the following grounds. GROUNDS 1. On 29.3 83 at 5 P. M. you along with your nine associates all being armed with Pistol, revolvers and daggers went on Motor Cycles to the house of one Mishri Azad Choudhary of Rajni Chowk. Bhatta Bazar. Purnea and illegally entered into his house, abused him and forcibly took away One Kajal Wrist-watch worth Rs. 600. one gold chain of 1½ Tolas worth Rs. 3000/- and cash amounting to Rs. 350/- from his Brief case. (K. Hat P.S. Case No. 116/83 dated 29.3.83 u/s 144/448/380 I.P.C.). 2. On account of the criminal activities and finding apprehension of breach of peace a report for action u/s 101 Cr. P. C. was submitted by K. Hat P.S. on 1.4.83 to the S.D.O. Sadar against you and your associates as 2nd party and Rohit Yadav and his associates as 1st party. (K. Hat P.S. Non-F.I.R. No. 21/83 dated 1.4.83). 3. On 10.4.83 at 8 A.M. while One Rohit Yadav of Bhatta Bazar, P.S.K. Hat. Purnea. was going to take tea near Lakhan Chowk you along with your associates Raj Kumar Dubey and Boby Ghosh committed murderous attack on him by firing shots from Pistols and thereby caused bullet injuries on his persons. (K.Hat P.S Case No. 135/83 dated 10.4.83 u/s 307 IPC. & 25(A) and 26 Arms Act.). 4. Purnea. was going to take tea near Lakhan Chowk you along with your associates Raj Kumar Dubey and Boby Ghosh committed murderous attack on him by firing shots from Pistols and thereby caused bullet injuries on his persons. (K.Hat P.S Case No. 135/83 dated 10.4.83 u/s 307 IPC. & 25(A) and 26 Arms Act.). 4. On 26.10.83 in broad day light you with the help of your accomplices kidnapped a minor Girl Kumari Mamta Gbosh by forcibly lifting her in a car for immoral purposes. K. Hat P. S. Case No. 395/83 dated 26.10.83 u/s 363/366 I.P.C.). 5. On 9.3.84 at about 12 A.M. you along with your associates stopped Bus No. BRJ 1327 of One Ashok Kumar Ghosh of Bhatta Bazar, purnea, in front of old Petrol Pump to the west of Khuskibagh. P. S. Sadar, Purnea. You at the point of revolver called all the staffs of the Bus at Petrol Pump and threatened them to put them in the Bus and to set fire in it if they would drive the Bus and work in it (Sadar P.S. Case No. 51/84 u/s 341/504 I.P.C.). 6. On 15.3.84 at about 10 A.M. while Sri Ashok Kumar Ghosh of south Bhatta Bazar, P. S. K. Hat, Purnea, was taking tea at Lakhan Chowk you along with your associates reached there, assaulted him, threw away hot tea upon his face and took out Rs. 450/- from his pocket of the shirt. (K. Hat, P.S. Case No. 81/84 dated 15.3.84 u/s 341/319/323 I.P.C.). 7. On 17.4.84 at about 4 P.M. while one Subhas Kumar Ghosh went on hit Motor Cycle bearing No. BRK 7947 to see one wooden bridge near Supni Hat, P.S. Sadar, Purnea, if it was fit for plying Bus, you along with your three associates reached there on two - motor• cycles, one of red colour bearing No. BRK 2287 and another of black colour without number. One of your associates, named. Raj Kumar Dubey snatched away wrist-watch worth Rs. 650/- from the hand of Subhas Kumar Ghosh at the point of his revolver and whereas you fled away with the motor-cycle of the said Subhas Kumar Ghosh, you and your accomplices threatened Subhas Kumar, Ghosh to kill him if he would inform the police about the incident. (Sadar P. S. Case No. 79/84 dated 17.4.84 u/s 392 I.P.C.). PREVIOUS GROUNDS. 1. (Sadar P. S. Case No. 79/84 dated 17.4.84 u/s 392 I.P.C.). PREVIOUS GROUNDS. 1. That on 7.2.81 you along with one of your accomplices and other stopped Bus No. BHQ 9564 plying on Birpur-Patna road and on refusal of the Conductor of the Bus to pay any Chanda you along with your accomplices assaulted him and took away the wrist-watch, spectacle and Rs. 5/- from the person of the Conductor. (K. Hat P. S. Case No. 12 dated 7.2.81 u/s 379/323 I.P.C.). 2. That on 30.6.81 you along with your nine accomplices stopped One Jeep bearing No. BRK 8391. You with the help of your accomplices took away forcibly Rs. 150/- from the person of Surya Narain Singh the Driver of the Jeep and pushed the said Jeep to a nearby ditch. (K. Hat, P. S. Case No. 308/81 dated 30.6.81 u/s 147/342/323/379 I.P.C.). 3. That on 11.11.81 S.I., K.N. Mishra of K. Hat P.S. upon confidential information raided the premises of one Nitya Chandra Bhattacharya of Bhatta Sheopuri Mohalla. P.S.K. Hat. Purnea and during raid One country made Pistol was recovered from your bed upon which you along with your accomplices were found sitting and talking in a room, (K. Hat, P. S. case no. 471/8l dated 11.11.81 u/s 25(A)/26/35 Arms Act.). 4. On 8.6.82 you along with one Sunil Kumar Singh of Madhubani, Gandhi Nagar and others entered illegally the office of Manager, Chitrabani Cinema, Purnea at about 2.40 P.M. you along with your associates forcibly deprived the Manager of the Cinema named Sri Upendra Pd. Singh of cash amounting to about Rs. 1,800/-. When the said Manager put up some resistance, you assaulted him with knife which bit the Manager on the forehead. (K. Hat P. S. Case No. 0180/82 dated 8.6.82 u/s 448/323/324 379 I.P.C.). 5. On 10.7.82 about 8 P.M. you along with your associates near Kalibari Chowk Purnea deprived of Anil Kumar, a second year student of Purnea Polytechnic of his wrist-watch and a golden ring. You also threatened him that he would be killed in case he dared to report the incident to the police. (K. Hat P. S. Case No. 215/82 dated 10.7.82 u/5 341/323/379 I.P.C.). 6. On 17.7.82 at 3 P.M. near Purnea Agrawal Market you along with your accomplices assaulted one Murari Singh of Ufrail, P. S. Basaithi (Raniganj). District Purnea at present Sipahi Tola, Madhubani, P. S. K. Hat. (K. Hat P. S. Case No. 215/82 dated 10.7.82 u/5 341/323/379 I.P.C.). 6. On 17.7.82 at 3 P.M. near Purnea Agrawal Market you along with your accomplices assaulted one Murari Singh of Ufrail, P. S. Basaithi (Raniganj). District Purnea at present Sipahi Tola, Madhubani, P. S. K. Hat. One of your accomplices assaulted Murari Singh and you fired a shot from your Pistol at him injuring him On the left side of the chest. (K. Hat P. S. Case No. 223/82 dated 18.7.82 u/s 342/323/307 IPC & 27 Arms Act). In view of the above grounds, I am satisfied that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner pre-judicial to the public order it is necessary to detain him under Section 12(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. Hence, Sri Dillp Singh is hereby informed that he can file representation in writing against the detention order by which be has been detained. If he has to submit any representation, he may address the same to the Under Secretary to Government of Bihar, Home (Police) Department, Patna, through the Jail Superintendent. Sd/ District Magistrate, Purnea. Forwarded, in triplicate, to the Jail Superintendent. District Jail. Purnea. He will please return two copies with detenue's signature after being served on the detenue. (All connected papers have been given to the detenue on 3.6.84)." A very surprising thing which appears to me is that the District Magistrate. Purnea, while disclosing the grounds by Memo No. 2447/C dated 9.6.84 (Annexure-5 to the writ application), has said "all connected papers have been given to the detenue on 3.6.84". Though it will bear repetition, the order of detention dated 3.6.84 along with which the grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner was already revoked by the District Magistrate by his order dated 9.6.84 (Annexure-6). 19. In pursuance of the grounds served upon the petitioner, as above, the petitioner filed a representation to the State Government as contemplated under section 17 of the Act, on 13.6.84. However, representation was rejected and the State Government on 19.6.84, approved the order of detention dated 9.6.84, passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea, The petitioner has complained in the instant application that the order rejecting the representation was served upon him as late as on 16.7.84. 20. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board on 23.7.84. However, representation was rejected and the State Government on 19.6.84, approved the order of detention dated 9.6.84, passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea, The petitioner has complained in the instant application that the order rejecting the representation was served upon him as late as on 16.7.84. 20. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board on 23.7.84. The A4visory Board submitted its opinion to the State Government upholding the order of detention and held that sufficient grounds existed for detention of the petitioner, WHEREUPON the impugned order (Annexure-18) dated 3rd August, 1984, was passed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 21(1) read with section 22 of the Act, and the State Government confirmed the detention order No. 2446/C dated 9.6.84 passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea, under section 12(1) of the Act, and ordered that the petitioner shall remain in detention till 8.6.85. The facts, as stated above, are the relevant facts which needed to be stated in order to appreciate the legal submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 21. The facts, as stated above, are the relevant facts which needed to be stated in order to appreciate the legal submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 21. Before I deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to quote a few lections of the Act, : Sec. 2(d) :-“Anti-Social element" means a person who- (1) either by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the Commit or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code; Or x x (iv) has been found habitually passing indecent remarks to, or teasing women or girls; Or Sec. 12(1)-The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public 'order and there is reason to fear that the activities of anti-social elements cannot be prevented otherwise than by tile immediate arrest of such persons make an order directing that such anti-social element be detained, (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevailing in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate, the state Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may by an order in writing direct, that, during such period as may be specified in the order, such District Magistrate may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1) exercise the powers conferred upon by the said sub-section. Proviso to clause (2) and clause (3) of section 12 are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the question involved in the instant case and hence they are omitted. Sec. 21(1)-In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period al it thinks fit. (2) In any case where the Advisory Board hall reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith. (2) In any case where the Advisory Board hall reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith. Sec.22 Maximum period of detention - The maximum period for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order which bas been confirmed under section 21 shall be twelve months from the date of detention : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the power of the Government to revoke or modify the detention order at any earlier time, Sec. 23. Revocation of detention orders- (1) Without prejudice to the provision of section 21 of the General Clause Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified - (1) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 12, or by the State Government to which that officer is subordinate. (2) The revocation or expiry of - a detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh detention order under Section 12 against the same person in any case where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the State Government or an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 12, as the case may be, is satisfied that such an order should be made. (The words have been under-lined by me for emphasis ) 22. In the instant case the main impugned order, (Annexure 18) dated 3.8.84, by which the petitioner has been ordered to remain in detention till 8.6.85 is founded on the initial order (no. 2446/c) dated 9.6.84 (Annexure-4) passed under section 12 (1) of the Act, by the District Magistrate, Purnea, by which the petitioner was ordered to be detained. It is this initial order (Annexure 4) with which the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner on the same day by memo No. 2447/c (Annexure -5) and which ultimately, On the opinion or the Advisory Board, the State Government passed the impugned order dated 3.8.84 (Annexure -18). It is this initial order (Annexure 4) with which the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner on the same day by memo No. 2447/c (Annexure -5) and which ultimately, On the opinion or the Advisory Board, the State Government passed the impugned order dated 3.8.84 (Annexure -18). Thus, the initial order (Annexure - 4) having been passed under section 12 (1) of the Act, ic is relevant to explain as to what is "anti-social element" Thus, the order passed under section 12 (1) of the Act, necessarily has to be read with the definition of "anti-social element" the relevant clauses of which have been quoted above. Looking to the definition of "anti-social element", it seems that in sub-clauses (i) and (iv) of section 2(d), the word "habitually" is used. The expression “'habitually" mean- "repeatedly" or "persistently". It implies thread of continuity stringing together similar repetitive acts. Repeated, persistent and similar but not isolated, individual and dissimilar acts are necessary to justify an inference of habit. It connotes frequent commission of acts or omissions of the same kind referred to in each of the said sub clauses or an aggregate of similar acts or omissions. This appears to be clear from the use of the word "habitually" separately in clause (i), sub• clause (ii) and sub-clause (iv) of section 2(d) and not in sub clauses (iii) and (v) of section 2(d). Commission of an Act, omission referred to in one of the sub-clauses (i),(ii) and (iv) and of another Act, or omission referred to in any other of the said sub clauses would not be sufficient to treat a person as an 'anti social element". A single Act, or omission falling under sub-clause (i) and a single Act, or omission falling under sub-clause (iv) of section 2(d) cannot, therefore, be charecterised as a habitual Act, or omission referred to in either of them. Because the idea of ‘habit' involves an element or persistence and a tendency to repeat the acts or omissions in question are not of the same kind or even if they are of the same kind when they are committed with a long interval of time between them they cannot be treated as habitual ones (the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Narain Singh.. State of Bihar has interpreted 'anti social element' with reference to sub clause. State of Bihar has interpreted 'anti social element' with reference to sub clause. (i) and (iv) of section 2(d) and has held as above). Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind of an anti social element, I have to see whether the present main impugned order (Annexure-18) founded on the initial order (Annexure -4) passed under section 12 (1) of the Act, is valid or not. 23. To appreciate the legal submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. it is also relevant to quote the relevant provisions of the preventive Detention Act, (Act 4 of 1950 ). which came for consideration by the Supreme Court in the case of Hadibandhu Das V. District Magistrate, Cuttak & another. The relevant provisions of that Act, is for the purpose of the present case, section 13 (2), which provide as follows:- "The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh detention order under section 3 against the same person in any case where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the Central Government or a State Government or an officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that such an order should be made. Thus, if section 13 (2) of Preventive Detention Act, (Act 4 of 1930) ill compared with section 23 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, (Bihar Act, 7 of 1981), it is obvious that section 23 (2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, stands at par with section 13 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, (Act 4 of 1950). 24. It is well settled that the power of detaining authority must be determined by reference to the language used in the statute and not by reference to any predilections about the legislative intent. In my, opinion, there is nothing in section 23 (2) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act. 1981, which indicates that the expression "revocation" means only revocation of an order which is otherwise valid and operative : apparently it includes cancellation of all orders invalid as well as valid (words have been underlined by me for emphasis). The word “revocation" mean. annulling rescinding withdrawing. "Revocation" means cancellation of the previous order. The word "revocation". in my opinion, is not capable of restricted interpretation without any indication by the farmer of law of any other intention. 25. The word “revocation" mean. annulling rescinding withdrawing. "Revocation" means cancellation of the previous order. The word "revocation". in my opinion, is not capable of restricted interpretation without any indication by the farmer of law of any other intention. 25. Negligence of inaptitude of the detaining authority in making a defective order of in failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act, may in some cases enure for the benefit of the detenue to which he is not entitled. But, it must be remembered that the Act, coaters power to make a serious invasion upon the liberty of the citizen by the subjective determination of facts by an executive authority and the framers of Act, have provided several safeguards against misuse of the powers. If a defective order is passed or if an order has become invalid because of default in strictly complying with the mandatory provisions of the law. it be-speaks negligence on the part of the detaining authority. And the principle underlying Section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 is, in my opinion, the outcome of insistence by the framers of the Act, that the detaining authority shall fully apply its mind to and comply with the requirements of the statute and of insistence upon refusal to countenance slipshod exercise of power. 26, Similar provision as in section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, was there in section 14(2) of the maintenance of the Internal Security Act, (1971), Thus. section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 stands at par also with section 14(2) of the Maintenance of the Internal Security Act, (1971), 27. Keeping in view the aforesaid meaning of the word "revocation", it has to be seen whether main impugned order in the instant case (Annexure-18) is sustainable in law under section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981; in other words, whether the impugned order is based on fresh fact, after the revocation of the earlier order dated 3.6.84 (Annexure-3) (also passed under lection 12(1) of the Act.). 28. The grounds of detention of the petitioner served with the earlier order (Annexure• 3) have already been quoted in extenso in paragraph 11 above. There were 13 grounds of detention. This order (Annexure-3) dated 3.6.84 was revoked by order dated 9.6.84, passed by the District Magistrate. Purnea (Annexure-6), as quoted in paragraph 16 above. 28. The grounds of detention of the petitioner served with the earlier order (Annexure• 3) have already been quoted in extenso in paragraph 11 above. There were 13 grounds of detention. This order (Annexure-3) dated 3.6.84 was revoked by order dated 9.6.84, passed by the District Magistrate. Purnea (Annexure-6), as quoted in paragraph 16 above. At this stage, it would be pertinent to refer to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that, in fact the word "PRATISANGRAHIT" in Annexure-6 (order of revocation) means only "recalling" and not "revoking". Learned counsel. by advancing such a submission, submitted that if it is an order of recall then the present order of detention dated 9.6.84 (Memo No. 2447/C) passed under section 12(1) of the Act, by the District Magistrate, Purnea, could be passed on the very same grounds and, therefore, no infirmity or illegality was there. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that, in fact, the District Magistrate, Parnea, in the instant case, was exercising power under section 21 of the, General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) and not under section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, and. Thus, has contended that section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, is attracted only in case of revocation and not in cases in which the power is exercised under the General Clauses Act. 29. The grounds of detention of the petitioner was served upon him along with the order of detention, i.e., on the same day the 9th of June, 1984 (by Memo No. 2447/C) itself. These gonads upon which the main impugned order (Annexure-18) is founded have been quoted in extenso in paragraph 18 above and, though it will bear repetition, at the end, it has been stated “all connected papers have been given to the detenue on 3.6.84 ". If one compares the grounds as quoted in paragraph 18 above (in annexure-5) upon which the main impugned order (Annexure-18 is founded, it is manifest al thus Grounds in Grounds in Annexure-5 Annexure-3. (already revoked) (i) Grounds no. 1` = Grounds no.7 (ii) Grounds no. 2 = Grounds no.13 (iii) Grounds no. 3 = Grounds no.8 (iv) Grounds no. 4 = Grounds no.9 (v) Grounds no. 5 = Grounds no.11 (vi) Grounds no. 6 = Grounds no.10 (v) Grounds no. (already revoked) (i) Grounds no. 1` = Grounds no.7 (ii) Grounds no. 2 = Grounds no.13 (iii) Grounds no. 3 = Grounds no.8 (iv) Grounds no. 4 = Grounds no.9 (v) Grounds no. 5 = Grounds no.11 (vi) Grounds no. 6 = Grounds no.10 (v) Grounds no. 7 = Grounds no.12 Then, it seems that in Annexure-5 another heading has been given as Previous Grounds. Under this heading (Previous Grounds), there are 5 grounds and it is again clear that ground no. 1 under this heading is very same ground as grounds no. 1 of Annexure-3. Ground no. 2 - ground no. 2, ground no. 3 = ground no. 3, ground no. 4 = ground no. 4, ground no. 5 = ground no. 5 and ground no. 6 = ground no. 6 of Annexure-3. 30 From the above, it would appear that on fresh fact, whatsover, was mentioned in Annexure-5, dated 9.6.84 (Memo No. 2447/C) while passing the order of detention dated 9.6.84 (Memo No. 2446/C) (Annexure - 4) by the District Magistrate, Purnea, under section 12(1) of the Act. The grounds in Annexure-5 are mere verbatim repetitions of the earlier ground. They are absolutely' identical to the grounds (Annexure-3) which stood revoked by Annexure-6. No fresh fact had arisen after the revocation of the earlier order/grounds (Annexure-3) dated 3.6.84, revoked by order dated 9.6,84 (Annexure-6). 31. Thus, the question is whether the present main impugned order (Annexure-18) is sustainable in law in the aforesaid background. 32. They are absolutely' identical to the grounds (Annexure-3) which stood revoked by Annexure-6. No fresh fact had arisen after the revocation of the earlier order/grounds (Annexure-3) dated 3.6.84, revoked by order dated 9.6,84 (Annexure-6). 31. Thus, the question is whether the present main impugned order (Annexure-18) is sustainable in law in the aforesaid background. 32. Now, looking to section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, as already quoted above, in my opinion, if an order for the detention of a person had been made under the Act, on the grounds mentioned in that order or served on the person with the order and if that Order was either subsequently revoked or the period for which the detention order was made bad expired, the said order would not stand in the way of making a fresh order of detention under section 12 of the Act, against the same person provided fresh facts arose after the date of the said revocation or expiry: if no fresh facts came into being after the date of revocation or expiry, as may warrant the making of an order of detention, the requisite condition precedent to the making of the subsequent order would be non-existent and it would not be permissible to make a subsequent order of detention under Section 12 or the Act, on the very same grounds. 33. The matter can also be looked at from another angle, Section 22 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, provides that the maximum period for which person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order which has been confirmed under section 21 of the Act, shall be 12 months from the date of detention. It is, therefore, plain that the maximum period for which a person can be detained on account of specified acts should 'not exceed 12 months. If for the same acts repeated orders of detention can be made, the effect would be that for the same acts a detenue would be liable to be detained for a period of more than 12 months. The making of a subsequent order of detention in respect of the same acts, for which an earlier order of detention was made, would run counter to the entire scheme of the Act. The making of a subsequent order of detention in respect of the same acts, for which an earlier order of detention was made, would run counter to the entire scheme of the Act. It would also set at naught the restriction which is imposed by section 22 of the Act, relating to the maximum period for which a person can be detailed in pursuance or a detention order. 34. In the instant case, 1 hold that after the order of revocation (Annexure-6) of the earlier order of detention (Annexure-3). no fresh facts had arisen and in that view of the matter the revocation order (Annexure-6) was a legal bar for making the fresh detention, order (Annexure-4) dated 9.6.84 on the very same/identical grounds as in Annexure-3 (the grounds of detention being Annexure-5 dated 9.6.84). 35. For the reasons stated hereinbefore. I hold that the grounds (Annexure-5) on which the petitioner was detained under section 12(1) of the Act, were non-est in the eye of law. I further hold that, on the facts stated above, the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate Purnea in passing the impugned order of detention (Annexure-4) was completely lacking and the order was passed absolutely in a mechanical way and in perfunctory manner I further hold that in the instant on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the order of detention of the petitioner (Annxure-4) on non-est grounds (Annexure-5) was a clear case of abuse of power on the part of the District Magistrate on the facts of the present case, was deprived of his fundamental right to liberty and the petitioner's fundamental right to liberty could not be curtailed in the way as it has been done in the instant case. 36. Thus, I hold that the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds. The submissions advanced by tile learned counsel for the respondents have no force and they must be rejected in view of the interpretation of the word "revocation" as already given above. The word" PRATISANGRAHIT" as used in Annexure- 6 (which has been quoted in full above) means "revoked" as would appear from the Legal Glossary issued by the State of Bihar in the year 1979. The word used in Annexure-6 (in the order of revocation) does not suffer from any vagueness at all, It specifically. The word" PRATISANGRAHIT" as used in Annexure- 6 (which has been quoted in full above) means "revoked" as would appear from the Legal Glossary issued by the State of Bihar in the year 1979. The word used in Annexure-6 (in the order of revocation) does not suffer from any vagueness at all, It specifically. categorically and positively says that the order/grounds dated 3.6.84 (Memo No. 2374)' is hereby revoked. 37. Section 23(1) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, starts as follows :- "Without prejudice to the provision of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) a detention order may at any time, be revoked or modified... " Thus, there is no ambiguity or vagueness in section 23(1) of the Act. A detention order can be revoked or modified under section 23(1) of the Act. In the instant case the District Magistrate, Purnea, by Annexure-6 (quoted above) has positively and without any vagueness revoked the earlier order of detention (Annexure-3) under section 23(1) of the Act. There is no mention in the order of revocation (Annexure-6) that the District Magistrate was exercising his power under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. If the District Magistrate was exercising his power under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, he could have very easily and conveniently referred to his power under the General Clauses Act. Non-mention of the power exercised under the General Clause Act, 1897, shows that in the instant case the District Magistrate, Purnea, has exercised his power under section 23(1) of the Bihar Control of Clauses Act, 1981, and not under the General Clauses Act, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the order (Annexure-3) was only "recalled" by order (Annexure-6) and not "revoked", has no substance at all, as the word "PRATISANGRAHIT" means "revoked" and not "recalled". 38. Having rejected this submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the other submission advanced by the earned counsel for the respondents automatically falls The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if power of revocation was exercised under General Clauses Act, section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, was not attracted. 38. Having rejected this submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the other submission advanced by the earned counsel for the respondents automatically falls The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if power of revocation was exercised under General Clauses Act, section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, was not attracted. I have already held above that in the present case the order of revocation (Annexure-6) was not passed under the General Clauses Act, but positively under section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly contended that section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, was attracted only in case of revocation. As I have already stated above that here was a case of revocation and not a case in which the District Magistrate had exercised his power under General Clauses Act, I hold that section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, was fully attracted on the facts of the case. 39. For the reasons given hereinbefore, the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents fail and are rejected. 40. In view of the fact that the application Succeeds on the very first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second limb of his submissions to the effect that the proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be one of the grounds for detention need not be considered. 41. Having given my anxious consideration to the case, I am of the view that the order of detention (Annexur-4) dated 9.6.84. the grounds of detention (Annexure-5) dated 9.6.84, must be held to be non-est in the eye of law and consequently the main impugned order (Annexure-18) dated 3.8.84 is also Wholly illegal and against the provisions of law as contained in section 23(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, as the order of detention is not passed on fresh facts, after the date of revocation (Aunexure-6). 42. In the result, I quash the order of detention (Anuexure-4) the grounds of detention (Annexre-5) and also the order dated 3.8.84 (Annexure-18) by which the petitioner has been ordered to remain in detention till 6.8.85. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be in custody on some other grounds. I agree. Application allowed.