JUDGMENT S. N. Jha, J. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court to quash the order of detention contained in Annexure-l appended to this application. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, in short are that the petitioner was arrested on 23.9.1986 and the order of detention was served on the same day. The ground of detention was served by respondent no. 2 vide Memo No. 1694 dated 23.9.1986, copy of which is Annexure2 appended to this application From Annexure.2 it appears that number of grounds have been enumerated in the said Annexure and it is needless to go into the details of the same. It appears that all the cases mentioned in the ground of detention relate to the offences under the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act, and they are pending for trial. It range from year 1984 to 1986. The last part of Annexure-2 reads as follows :- “I am satisfied from the report of police and materials placed before me that Md. Nisar is an anti-social element and habitually commits offences punishable under Chapter XVI and Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code and is, therefore, an anti-social element as defined u/s 2 (d)(i) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981. His movement and Act, are such that adversely affect the public order. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that if he is allowed to remain at large, he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. For prevention of such activities I consider it necessary to detain him u/s 12 of the Act." 3. The petitioner was informed that he may make representation in writing to the Joint Secretary, Home (Police) Deptt., Government of Bihar, Patna, against the order under which he has been detained. 4. The petitioner's detention was approved by the State Government on 1.10. 1986 vide Annexure-3 and it was confirmed by the State Government on 22.11.1986 vide Annexure-4. Annexure-5 is the representation dated 17.10.1986, which was received by the State Government on 22.10.1986 under registered cover from the Superintendent of jail, Ranchi, which was rejected on 1.12.1986 vide Annexure-6. 5. 4. The petitioner's detention was approved by the State Government on 1.10. 1986 vide Annexure-3 and it was confirmed by the State Government on 22.11.1986 vide Annexure-4. Annexure-5 is the representation dated 17.10.1986, which was received by the State Government on 22.10.1986 under registered cover from the Superintendent of jail, Ranchi, which was rejected on 1.12.1986 vide Annexure-6. 5. It appears that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board on 5.11.1986 and after receipt of the report of the Advisory Board date 5.11.1986 it was confirmed by the State Government on 22.11.1986 vide Annexure-4, as indicated above. Hence this application. 6. Mr. Rash Bihari Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order of detention on many grounds) mainly on the ground that the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected after undue delay. Secondly, it was argued that the case of the petitioner was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention as envisaged in Section 19 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (in short Crime Control Act) therefore, the detention is illegal and fit to be quashed. It was also contended that the activities of the petitioner mentioned in the ground of detention are not such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as all those activities relate to the law and order problem, but this point was taken half heartedly in case the petitioner would not succeed on the first two grounds. 7 Two counter affidavits have been filed, one on behalf of respondent no. I i.e. the State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar and the other on behalf of respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Ranchi. 8. In the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 it is stated in paragraph no.9 that the representation of the petitioner was received on 22.10.1986 under registered cover from the Superintendent of Jail, Ranchi. Comments of Deputy Commissioner was called for through special messenger on 25.10.1986. The comments of the Deputy Commissioner were received on 17.11.1986. The representation was examined and put up by office on 24.11.1986 and it was submitted to the Chief Minister for orders on 25.11.1986 and the orders were passed on 28.11. 1986 by the State Government. Comments of Deputy Commissioner was called for through special messenger on 25.10.1986. The comments of the Deputy Commissioner were received on 17.11.1986. The representation was examined and put up by office on 24.11.1986 and it was submitted to the Chief Minister for orders on 25.11.1986 and the orders were passed on 28.11. 1986 by the State Government. The State Government's rejection was communicated the petitioner on 1.12.1986. 9. Mr. Singh on the basis of the counter affidavit stated that there was undue delay in disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner. It was submitted that no plausible explanation has been advanced on behalf of the State Government. Even if the representation was received by the State Government on 22.10.1986, as stated in the counter affidavit, it was sent to the Deputy Commissioner for comments after three days i.e. on 25.10.1986 and the file was kept in the office of the Deputy Commissioner for 23 days because according to the counter affidavit itself, it shows that the comments of the Deputy Commissioner was received on 17.11.1986. Even then the representation was examined and put up by the office on 24.11.1986 i. e. after six days of delay. According to Mr. Singh there was a gap of fifty three days in disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner and on this ground alone the order of detention can be quashed. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision in Ajay Kumar Singh @ Guddu Versus The State of Bihar and others it where it has been held :- "Although several questions were raised that the grounds of detention would at best indicate law and order problem and not public order the sole ground on which the petition was pressed was delay in disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his representation to respondent no. 1 on 4.10.1986 and after long lapse of time representation of the petitioner was rejected on 11.11.1986. Thus it is obvious that there was delay of 39 days in disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner. Neither in the counter affidavit nor in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents the facts alleged in paragraph 17 of the application has been controverted. Therefore, on this ground alone, the order of detention cannot be upheld and the same is quashed. " 10. Neither in the counter affidavit nor in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents the facts alleged in paragraph 17 of the application has been controverted. Therefore, on this ground alone, the order of detention cannot be upheld and the same is quashed. " 10. Reliance was also placed on a decision in Raj Kishore Prasad Versus The State of Bihar and others, where their Lordships considered the question of inordinate delay in considering the representation filed by the detenu and after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case held, "On the whole we consider in the circumstances of this case delay of 28 days in disposing of the representation as inordinate delay which would vitiate the order. Therefore, on this short ground we quash and set aside the detention order." 11. Relying on the aforesaid decision, Mr. Singh argued that in the instant case also there has been an inordinate delay of 52 day in disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner and On this ground alone the impugned order should be quashed. 12. The next point taken by Mr. Singh was that the mandatory provision of Section 19 of the Crime Control Act, has also not been complied with. Section 19 of the Crime Control Act, reads as follows ;- "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where a detention order has been made under this Act, the Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order place before the Advisory Board constitued by it under Section 18 the grounds on which the order has been made and representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by the District Magistrate mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 12 also the report by such under sub-section (3) of that section" 13. It was contended that Section 19 of the Control Act, has to be complied with in substance and in spirit. According to Mr. Singh the matter was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention as contemplate a under Section 19 of the Crime Control Act. In this connection he has relied upon a decision in Mahendra Singh alias Mahendra Kumar Sinzh Versus State of Bihar and other. According to Mr. Singh the matter was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention as contemplate a under Section 19 of the Crime Control Act. In this connection he has relied upon a decision in Mahendra Singh alias Mahendra Kumar Sinzh Versus State of Bihar and other. In that case the order of detention was passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short N. S. Act). Under Section 10 of the N. S. Act, reference will be made to the Advisory Board Section 10 of the N.S. Act, is verbatim of Section 19 or the Crime Control Act. Section 10 of the N.S. Act, also lays down that in every case where the detention order has been made under this Act, the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the order has been made and also representation if any made by the person affected by the order. In the aforesaid case the detention was challenged in this Court and a point was raised before a Division bench that the mandatory requirements of Section 10 of 1he N.S. Act, were not fulfilled as the case of the petitioner was not placed by the State Government before the Advisory Board within the period stipulated therein. Their Lordships while considering this argument held :- “But Section 10 has to be complied with in 'substance and in spirit. The expression used in it does not end the liability of the State Government with its writing Or making a communication to the Board, but placing before the Advisory Board, the grounds on which the petitioner was detained. To the petitioners averment that his case was not placed before the Advisory Board, the only reply in the counter affidavit is that the State Government referred it to the Board on 15.12.1986. To the petitioners averment that his case was not placed before the Advisory Board, the only reply in the counter affidavit is that the State Government referred it to the Board on 15.12.1986. The State Government has not come forward with a case that the grounds on which the order was made and the representation, if any, made by the petitioner were placed before the Advisory Board within the statutory period of three weeks." And their Lordships find force in the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner in the said case and allowed the application on this score also apart from other grounds, raised in the said case. 14. On the other hand it was contended on behalf of the State that sufficient explanation has been given by the State Authorities in its counter affidavit and it is not essential that the matter must be decided by the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention. In the counter affidavit field on behalf of respondent no.1 it has been stated, as I have already indicated above, that the representation was received on 22. 10. 1986 and it was sent for comments of the Deputy commissioner on 25.10.1986. The comments of the Deputy Commissioner was received on 17.11.1986 i.e. after 23 days. The representation was examined and then put up by office after 6 days i.e. on 24.11.1986 and then it was submitted to the Chief Minister for orders on 25.11.1986 and the impugned order was passed on 28.11.1986 by the State Government. I do not find any explanation for such delay in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it has been averred that the shortest possible time was taken in disposal of the petitioner's representation at the State Government's level and this is inevitable because of the official procedures involved therein. This affidavit has been sworn in by an assistant of the office of respondent no. 1. I am constrained to observe that it was wrong to state that the shortest possible time was taken in disposing of the petitioner's representation. It took about 52 days in disposing of the matter. In such cases the State machinery should be prompt in dealing with the representation of the detenu as it involves the liberty of a citizen of the country. It took about 52 days in disposing of the matter. In such cases the State machinery should be prompt in dealing with the representation of the detenu as it involves the liberty of a citizen of the country. It is well known that when under a Statute a duty is cast upon the State authorities to do certain acts within the stipulated period, the State authorities must perform such duties within that period. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the State counsel that the failure of the Detaining Authority in considering the representation within the reasonable time would not invalidate the order. When the Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Prasad Versus The State of Bihar and others) (supra) has quashed the order on the delay of 28 days, in the instant case I find that there has been delay of 52 days with out any explanation furnished by the State. 15. It was also contended on behalf of the State that Section 19 of the Crime Control Act, does not enjoin the State Government to take steps to see that the case of the detnue must be considered by the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention. It only casts a duty on the appropriate Government "to place before the Advisory Board" constituted under the Act, within three weeks. In the instant case I find that the Appropriate Government did not even place the matter before the Advisor) Board within three weeks from the date of the detention of the detenu as nothing has been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the State. 16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of this case) I am satisfied that there is force in both the contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner's detention is invalid. 17. As the petition succeeds only on these two grounds, it is not necessary to deal with the third point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 18. In the result the application is allowed and accordingly I direct that the petitioner. Md. Nasir, must be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Application allowed.