Judgment S.N.Jha and P.N.Yadav JJ. 1. The petitioner has been detained in preventive custody under section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (herein after referred to as the said Act) by the District Magistrate, Begusarai vide his memo no.3156 dated 18th November, 2001. The detention has been approved by the State Government under section 12(3) of the said Act on 29th November, 2001 and confirmed under section 21(1) read with section 22 of the said Act on 27th December, 2001. In between, after service of ground of detention dated 19.11.2001 the petitioner made representation on 9.12.2001 which was rejected on 22.12.2001. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said orders and his release. 2. Sri Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner made three-fold submission. He firstly submitted that the petitioner has been detained to prevent him from securing bail in Barauni (Zero Mile) RS. Case No. 370/2001 under section 25(1-B) A and 26 of the Arms Act; Secondly, from the grounds of detention it would appear that the petitioner has been detained on the basis of incidents which took place 14 months prior to the detention order on 13.8.2000 and 7.9.2000. There being no proximity between the incidents and the detention, the order is fit to be set aside. Lastly, there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner and on this ground too the detention is liable to be set aside. 3. We do not find any substance in the first and third points. The Supreme Court in some cases has taken the view that where the person is in jail custody, there should be awareness in the mind of the detaining authority that his release from custody is imminent and in that view of the matter if the District Magistrate mentioned in the detention order that the petitioner is trying for bail, it cannot be said that the detention was in order to preempt the petitioner from being released on bail. As regards delay in disposal of the representation, it appears that the comments of the detaining authority was received in the department on 11.12.2001 i.e. within two days of the representation. On 13.12.2001 the dealing assistant put up a note to the Under Secretary but onc account of non-availability of the Under Secretary the file was returned to him. He submitted fresh notes, addressed to the Deputy Secretary, on 19.12.2001. On 13.12.2001 the dealing assistant put up a note to the Under Secretary but onc account of non-availability of the Under Secretary the file was returned to him. He submitted fresh notes, addressed to the Deputy Secretary, on 19.12.2001. On 20.12.2001 the Deputy Secretary forwarded the file with his notes to the Home Commissioner. On 21.12.2001 the Home Commissioner put up the file before the Minister Incharge i.e. the Chief Minister who was pleased to reject the representation on 22.12.2001. 4. The right to have the representation considered within a reasonable time is a constitutional right and where the representation of the detenu does not receive prompt attention by the detaining authority, the detention is liable to be quashed as being violative of the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. However, as the Supreme Court has clarified what is of substance is not the period of delay but the explanation of the delay. While in one case a shorter but un-explained delay may vitiate the detention, in another case, longer delay may not if an explanation is furnished for the same. In the instant case it is true that the file got stuck up in the office between 11.12.2001 and 19.12.2001 but that was on account of non-availability of the Under Secretary. It is well known that the Government functions through hierarchy of officials and as per practice and procedure the Dealing Assistants are supposed to put up notes to the Under Secretary which in this case was done but be cause the Under Secretary was not available the file could not go beyond untill 19.12.2001. We are satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the delay was not intentional. In any view,the representation was disposed of within 13 days. In these premises it does not appear that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation. 5. The detention of the petitioner, however, is fit to be set aside on account of lack of proximity between the incidents forming the grounds of detention and the issuance of detention order. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kishore Singh @ Kale Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 2002 (3) PLJR 372 . In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kishore Singh @ Kale Singh V/s. State of Bihar, 2002 (3) PLJR 372 . In that case the petitioner had been detained on the basis of three incidents, the last of which had taken place ten months prior to the detention. This Court following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagan Nath Biswas V/s. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 S.C. 1516 , held that there should be some proximity of time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied upon by the authorities and the satisfaction arrived at by them. It would be useful to quote the relevant part of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagan Nath Biswas (supra) as under : "The incidents themselves look rather serious but also stale, having regard to the long gap betweeen the occurrence and the order of detention. One should have expected some proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied on and the satisfaction arrived at. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that unexplained and long delay will be fatal to the plea of subjective satisfaction." 6. It is relevant to mention that in the case before the Supreme Court the detention order was issued after six months of the last incident as against ten months in the case of Ram Kishore Singh (supra) and 14 months in the instant case. This Court while setting aside the order of detention in Ram Kishore Singh (supra) noted that there may be explanation for not issuing the detention order within a reasonable period of time but, then, such explanation must be given by the detaining authority constituting his subjective satisfaction. The Court cannot substitute its own satisfaction and fill up the gap. The District Magistrate has filed counter affidavit but no explanation whatsoever has been furnished as to why the order of detention was not issued within a reasonable time after the impugned incidents took place. As a matter of fact the counter affidavit does not show even an awareness of the fact that there should be proximity of time between the incidents and the detention order. As a matter of fact the counter affidavit does not show even an awareness of the fact that there should be proximity of time between the incidents and the detention order. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that the detention order has been issued only after the petitioner was taken into custody in the aforesaid case under the Arms Act on 12.10.2001 on the report of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai but since in view of definition of "anti social element" under Section 2(d)(v) of the Act, that incident could not constitute a ground of detention, the detention order was issued on the basis of past incidents which had taken place more than 14 months ago. 7. In the above premises, we are of the view that the submissions of the learned counsel with respect to the second point are well founded and the impugned detention is fit to be struck down. 8. In the result, the order of detention dated 18.11.2001, as contained in Annexure-1, is quashed. Necessarily, therefore, the consequential orders dated 29.11.2001, as contained in annexure-4, approving the order of detention and 27.12.2001 as contained in Annexure-6 confirming the same, are also quashed. This writ petition thus stands allowed. Let the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.