Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents have been beard at length. 2. The petitioner was detained on 3-2-1990 under Sec. 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (in short the Act). The order of detention is dated 11-12-1989 (Annexure 2). The grounds and reasons for detention are contained in Annexure 3, which is also dated 11-12-1989. 3. It transpires from the records of the case that the detention of the petitioner has been approved by the State Government as well as by the Advisory Board. In Paragraph No. 19 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner had filed a representation before the State Government on 22-2-1990 but the same has been rejected on 30-3-1990 after about 37 days and there is no reasonable explanation for the undue delay caused in the disposal of the representation. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent State has tried to make futile efforts to explain the delay. The explanation is far from being satisfactory In the counter-affidavit, it has been admitted that the representation of the petitioner was received by the State Government on 22-2-1990 and the same was sent for comments to the District Magistrate and the comments of the District Magistrate were received on 19-3-1990. Thereafter the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 29-3-1990 and communicated to the petitioner on 30-3-1990. There is absolutely no explanation as to why a period of 25 days was taken in getting the comments of the District Magistrate. 4. The grounds and reasons for detention of the petitioner are virtually the same as in the case of S. Ali Imam, who is petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No. 117 of 1990 and who has also been detained by the Respondent-District Magistrate under the provisions of the present Act. Rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties are identical and so for the reasons discussed in detail in the case of S. Ali Imam Cr.W.J.C. No. 117 of 1990 reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 689, which has also been disposed of today by this Bench, I hold that the detention of the petitioner under Sec. 12(1) of the Act pursuant to the order contained in Annexure 2 is wholly illegal. Accordingly, 1 direct that the detenu S. Naqui Imam be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost. The writ application is accordingly allowed. S.C.Mookharji, J. 5 I agree.