Judgment L.P.N.Sahadeo, J. 1. This criminal writ application is directed against the detention order, dated 23-1-1990 passed by the District Magistrate, Singhbhum, Respondent No. 3, who has detained the petitioner under the provision of Section 12(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 for a period of one year. 2. It appears that the State Government granted approval of the detention of the petitioner on 3-2-90 vide Annexure 4 and, thereafter, the same was confirmed by the Govt. on 24-3-90 vide Annexure 5. 3. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has confined his argument only on the technical ground that the detention order passed by Respondent No. 3 is vitiated as the copies of the three sanha entries Bearing Nos. 73, dated 4-3-89, 15, dated 9-7-89 and 40, dated 2-7-89 were not supplied to him on the basis of which this detention order has been passed. In the order, it has been stated that after coming out of detention, the petitioner had indulged in criminal activities disturbing the public order for which those sanha entries were made against him This shows that those sanha entries were made the b3sis of the petitioners detention under the aforesaid provision. 4. The petitioner, in paragraph 11 of his writ application, has very specifically stated that he had no knowledge of the aforesaid three cases. He has asserted that since the copies of the aforesaid cases (sanha entries) were not served on him at the time when the detention order was passed, he was not in a position to make effective representation and of this ground alone it has been prayed that the detention order should be set aside. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In reply to the statement made in paragraph 11 of the writ application, it has been stated in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit that the detenu was aware of the facts mentioned in the station diary entries. This was not the sufficient compliance for making effective representation. How the detenu was aware of the facts mentioned in those sanha entries, is not stated in the counter-affidavit. It has also been not stated that the contents of paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit is based on the knowledge derived from the records rather, it has been stated the same is by way of submission only. 6. How the detenu was aware of the facts mentioned in those sanha entries, is not stated in the counter-affidavit. It has also been not stated that the contents of paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit is based on the knowledge derived from the records rather, it has been stated the same is by way of submission only. 6. The mandatory provision of section 17 of the Act on the basis of which the petitioner could have made an effective representation having not been complied with by not serving on him the copies of the aforesaid three sanha entries resulting into his detention, the same is vitiated in law and is violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution also. 7. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a ruling reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court, 300 (Yamnam Mogibabu Singh V/s. State of Manipur), in which it was held that non-furnishing of the copies prevented the detenu to make effective representation and hence violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and, as such, the detention was held to be illegal. 8. My attention was also drawn to Section 17 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act which says that in case a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority concerned shall communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against the order the State Government. This substantially means that all the grounds on the basis of which the detenu has been detained, shall be communicated to him. 9. In this case it is the admitted position that the three sanha entries have not been communicated to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. It has also been submitted that Article 22 (5) of the Constitution also envisages the same principle that the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person, the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against that order. 10. It has also been submitted that Article 22 (5) of the Constitution also envisages the same principle that the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person, the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making representation against that order. 10. This provision of the Constitution has been interpreted in a ruling reported in 1974 (4) SC Cases, 135 Debu Mahato V/s. State of West Bengal) in which it was found that one of the grounds was not communicated to the detenu on the basis of which he was detained and, therefore, it was held that the detenu was not afforded adequate opportunity of making representation which was violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. 11. Similar is the situation here. In view of the admitted position that the three sanha entries which form the basis of the detention order, were not communicated to the petitioner, the same is violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution It is the statutory duty of the detaining authority under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act also to communicate all the grounds of detention to the detenu either it is based on sanha entries or any other information necessitating his detention but if all the grounds on the basis of which the detention order has been passed is not supplied to him, the detention order must be held to be vitiated in law and also violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. 12. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this application is allowed. The impugned order of detention, dated 23-1-90 including the orders as contained in Annexures 4 and 5 are quashed. The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.