Judgment 1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order of detention passed by the Districl Magistrate. Bokaro on 20th September, 1995 under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 and served upon the petitioner on the same day while he was in custody in connection with a criminal case in the Bokaro Jail. The order of detention has been approved by the State Government on 30th September, 1995 under Section 12(3) of the Act. The grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner under Section 17 of the Act on 23-9-1995. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board and the respondents communicated to the petitioner that the Advisory Board had opined in favour of the detention of the petitioner. The said communication is Annexure 4, dated 21-12-1995. 2. In his writ petition, the petitioner has referred to the various grounds of detention and has submitted that the order of detention has been passed by the detaining authority without application of mind, and in any event, the incidents referred to do not justify his satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner, if not detained, were likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. At best, it can be said that the actions of the petitioner in the past gave rise to a law and order problem. It is further submitted that the incidents referred to in the grounds of detention are stale incidents and are stray incidents which have no adverse effect either on public order or even on law and order. The case of the petitioner is that since the detaining authority apprehended that in the pending criminal case the petitioner was likely to be enlarged on bail, he passed the order of detention without applying his mind to the facts of the case and the surrounding circumstances. It is, therefore, alleged by the petitioner that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is itself doubtful. In any event, his subjective satisfaction is vitiated on account of the delay, as also on account of the fact that the incidents referred to do not justify his subjective satisfaction that the petitioners actions were detrimental to maintenance of public order. It is, therefore, alleged by the petitioner that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is itself doubtful. In any event, his subjective satisfaction is vitiated on account of the delay, as also on account of the fact that the incidents referred to do not justify his subjective satisfaction that the petitioners actions were detrimental to maintenance of public order. It is also one of the grounds urged by the petitioner that the order of confirmation retaining to the opinion of the Board was served on the petitioner on 23-12-1995, when the law requires that the Advisory Board must submit its report within 7 weeks from the date of detention. It is, therefore, submitted that the detention of the petitioner on the expiry of seven weeks from the date of detention became bad, since the Advisory Board failed to submit its report in the matter. 3. We have noticed the plea of the petitioner with a view to appreciate the grounds on which the order of detention has been challenged. We have no doubt that the detaining authority was required in law, having regard to the allegations made in the writ petition to file a return controverting the allegations, and justifying his subjective satisfaction in the facts of the case and the surrounding circumstances. Unfortunately, the District Magistrate, Bokaro, the detataining authority, has not filed the return, and instead, one Mithilesh Kumar Singh, who was posted as Deputy Collector (Legal Section) has affirmed the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the detaining authority. We notice from the order sheet of the case that Government Pleader No. 2 accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents. Mr. P. D. Agrawal, G. P. II states that he had addressed communications to respondents 2 and 3 namely, the District Magistrate of Bokaro as well as Joint Secrerary, Police, Government of Bihar, Patna, instructing them to file the return in this case. However the return has been filed by a Deputy Collector purporting to be on behalf of the detaining authority, and no return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. 4. The allegation of the petitioner that the report of the Advisory Board was not submitted within seven weeks of the date of detention remains unrebutted. However the return has been filed by a Deputy Collector purporting to be on behalf of the detaining authority, and no return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. 4. The allegation of the petitioner that the report of the Advisory Board was not submitted within seven weeks of the date of detention remains unrebutted. No material was placed before us to show that the advisory board in fact submitted its report within seven weeks of the detention as required by Section 19 of the Act. 5. It is well settled that in a habeas corpus petition, where the sub-jective of the detaining authority is challenged by the petitioner, it is only the detaining authority who can reply to the allegations made against him. The record of the case will not disclose the manner in which the mind of the detaining authority operated, and whether in fact his subjective satisfaction was based on relevant considerations, or whether he was at all subjectively satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is only the detaining authority who can tell the Court, the relevant considerations which were present to his mind and the manner in which the subjective satisfaction which he is required to reach before passing an order under the Act were reached. Moreover in the instant case the Deputy Collector has on the basis of his personal knowledge rebutted the allegations regarding the genuineness of the alleged satisfaction in the basis of which detaining authority purported to act. That could be rebutted only be the detaining authority himself, and by no one else. In Munna Tuin v. District Magistrate, Lucknow, (1982) 3 SCC 3207 : AIR 1982 SC 878 in a similar situation, the Supreme Court held that in such cases, the explanation and return rebutting the allegations made by the detenu must be filed by the detaining authority himself. On this ground alone, the order of detention was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be relessed. 6. On this ground alone, the order of detention was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be relessed. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case aforesaid, we are left with no option but to all this writ petition holding that no proper counter-affidavit, explanation or return has been filed before us by the detaining authority rebutting the allegations made in the habeas corpus petition, and thererefore, we must proceed on the basis that the the detaining authority had nothing to say in rebuttal. We, therefore, quash the order of detention on this ground alone and direct the release of the petitioner forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case. Order to be communicated forthwith through special messenger at the cost of the petitioner.