Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. This criminal writ application has been filed for quashing the detention order of the petitioner, dated 18.8.1990 issued u/s. 12(2) by the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (shortly "the Act") respondent No.2, the District Magistrate, Ranchi. 2. It appears that the District Magistrate, Ranchi, on report of the Superintendent of Police and on considering the anti-social activities of the petitioner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the grounds and back grounds as mentioned in the impugned order, passed the aforesaid detention order holding that the petitioner 19 is anti-social element. 3. In this case counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 2 who have justified the detention order of the petitioner stating that he is an anti-social element and his detention has been done for maintenance of public order. 4. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the detention order of the petitioner is illegal on the ground that the detention order and all other connected matters should be placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks and the Advisory Board is required to submit its report to the Government within seven weeks from the date of the detention of the person concerned which has not been done in this case as the Advisory Board has not submitted its report within seven weeks. It was lastly submitted that the detention order is bad because the detention order was not confirmed within two months in view of the amendment of article 22(4) of the Constitution. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, learned J.C. to G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the Advisory Board has approved the detention order within seven weeks and the State Government has also passed its order on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board within three months as required under article 22(4) of the Constitution. 6. It is the admitted position in this case that the detention order was passed on 18.8.1990 by Respondent No.2. It was confirmed on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board on 9.11.1990. According to the counter affidavit, as mentioned in paragraph 17 of the same, the Advisory Board also approved the detention order of the petitioner and submitted its report on 9.11.1990 which means that the State Government has confirmed it on the same day. 7. It was confirmed on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board on 9.11.1990. According to the counter affidavit, as mentioned in paragraph 17 of the same, the Advisory Board also approved the detention order of the petitioner and submitted its report on 9.11.1990 which means that the State Government has confirmed it on the same day. 7. According to article 22(4) of the Constitution preventive detention of a person cannot be made for any longer period than three months unless such detention is approved by the Advisory Board within that period. In this case, as stated above, the detention order of the petitioner was passed on 18.8.1990 and the same was confirmed, after receipt of the report of the Advisory Board, on 9.11.1990 which indicates that the detention order of the petitioner was confirmed within three months as required under article 22 (4) of the Constitution. It follows, therefore, that no contravention of any of the provisions of article 22(4) of the Constitution was made in this case. Further detention can be prescribed by any law but that detention must be confirmed on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board within the period prescribed under article 22(4) of the Constitution which has been done in this case. Therefore, there is no constitutional contravention made in this case. Therefore, the whole argument advanced on this point appears to be erroneous. 8. It appears that the argument supposes that 44th Constitutional Amendment introduced in 1978 has been enforced. But, in fact, this constitutional amendment reducing the period from three months to two months has not been given effect to. It appears that in view of lapse of more than 12 years the Supreme Court has made certain un favourable comments but the fact remains that this 44th Constitutional Amendment has not been brought into force till today and, therefore, the argument that the detention order is required to be confirmed for further detention within two months, does not hold good in the field but it must be confirmed according to the existing law which means within three months which has been done in this case. 9. 9. Coming to the next aspect of the argument that the Advisory Board is required to give its opinion within seven weeks it appears that the Advisory Board has submitted its report on 9.11.1990 and on the same day the State Government has confirmed it which means that the report of the Advisory Board was submitted within three months from the date of detention but beyond seven weeks as required under sec. 20 of the Act. Admittedly delay has occurred before the Advisory Board. Advisory Board is an independent body free from any control of the Government. The question is whether this delay itself is sufficient to render the detention order illegal? The answer is in negative because Advisory Board had given opinion within three months which is required under article 22(4) of the Constitution. In this case, no doubt, opinion given by the Board is hit by sec. 20 of the Act but whether its contravention alone will invalidate the detention order? It depends upon the question of prejudice, whether serious prejudice has been caused to the detenu or not. The Government has not made any delay but delay occurred before the Advisory Board. Therefore, Government is not responsible for the delay. This delay has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner nor has taken away any constitutional protection. The Advisory Board gave report within three months. In my view, therefore, the violation done by an independent body of sec. 20 of the Act, shall not make the detention order of the Government ipso facto illegal but depends upon question of prejudice and facts and circumstances of each case. 10. It should be noted in this connection, as has been found in the case of Raisuddin & Babu Tamchi V/s. The State of Uttar Pradesh & another the Advisory Board being an independent body not within the control of the State Government, the State Government has no duty or responsibility to coerce the Advisory Board for giving the report within seven weeks as required under the law. This procedure, as found above, also indicates that non-submission of the report within seven weeks, does not invalidate the detention order for the default of Advisory Board. The validity or otherwise of the report of Advisory Board u/s. 20 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act shall depend upon the merit of each case. 11. This procedure, as found above, also indicates that non-submission of the report within seven weeks, does not invalidate the detention order for the default of Advisory Board. The validity or otherwise of the report of Advisory Board u/s. 20 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act shall depend upon the merit of each case. 11. It should be noted in this connection that the matter referred to the Advisory Board is for consideration as to whether the detention order of the person concerned is justified or not. After receipt of the report of the Advisory Board to the effect that the detention is justified, it is for the detaining authority or the Government to determine the period of detention subject to maximum laid down by the Parliament and in accordance with the requirement which does not offend constitutional provisions. 12. In view of the discussions made above, both the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner fail and cannot be accepted. 13. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is, accordingly, dismissed. Application dismissed. 1. A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 710. 2. A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 46.