ORDER 1. This writ application by petitioner has been filed for quashing the order No.8193 dated 2.8.2004 issued by the State Government in the Home (Police) Department granting approval of detention order dated 24.7.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram) for detention of the petitioner under section 12(2) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act 1981 (in short, the Act) and for quashing the order No.9880 dated 11.9.2004 of State Government, Home (Police) Department, confirming the order dated 24.7.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram) and directing for detention of petitioner till 25.7.2005. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he is a graduate, belongs to a respectable family and he is associated with social activities in his region and has organised various functions inducing the political one in the district of Rohtas. He was implicated in a false case lamely, Sasaram P.S. Case No. 523/2003 dated 14.10.2003 and was put behind the bar on 15.10.2003 and since then he is in jail custody. While he was in jail he was served the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram under section 12(2) of the Act directing the authorities concerned to detain him on the ground that he is a renowned and habitual criminal indulged in criminal activities and prejudicial to the public order. The District Magistrate, forwarded detention order to State Government for approval and petitioner was asked to file representation against his detention if he so desires and he submitted detailed representation denying the charges levelled against him and requested the authorities to cancel detention order (Annexure-2) but the State Government in most arbitrary and mechanical manner rejected the representation (Annexure-3) and his detention order was finally confirmed by the State Government under sections 21 and 22 of the Act and it was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 11.9.2004 (Annexure 1/2). The further case of the petitioner is that bare perusal of the grounds which are said to be basis of passing of detention order shows that there is nothing in the grounds to effect the public order and on this ground alone, the detention order is bad in law and is fit to be set aside and detaining authority failed to apply its judicial mind that the petitioner was already behind the bar in Sasaram P.S. Case No. 523 of 2003 when detention order was passed and there was no likelihood of his being released in near future. According to the petitioner, detaining authority did not apply its judicial mind before passing of detention order and disposal of his representation was also delayed. According to the petitioner, a number of substantial questions of law such as, whether detention order was passed in sheer disregard of the provisions of the Act, whether the same has been passed in a most mechanical manner without application of mind, whether there has been any justification to pass detention order when petitioner is already in custody, whether detention order is hit by the principles of double jeopardise, whether the initial order of detention is illegal and bad because of non-mentioning of the period of detention etc. arise in this case. 3. Respondents No.2, 3 and 4 have appeared and have filed separate counter affidavits. Petitioner has also filed reply to the counter affidavits. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of District Magistrate. Rohtas (Sasaram). respondent No.4, it is submitted that from the grounds of detention and the criminal antecedent it is clear that the petitioner is a hardened criminal and commits regular heinous crimes which has created an atmosphere of fear and terror in the society and he is involved in a case-of murder, kidnapping, business of heroin and he is an active member of International gang and he was arrested with 10 gms of heroin and during the course of interrogation he admitted that he is a commission agent of Heroin smugglers and after investigation charge-sheet has already been submitted. It is further stated that District Magistrate was fully satisfied that petitioner is an anti-social element and he was likely to be released on bail and, therefore, he passed detention order under section 12(2) of the Act. It is further stated that District Magistrate was fully satisfied that petitioner is an anti-social element and he was likely to be released on bail and, therefore, he passed detention order under section 12(2) of the Act. About representation of petitioner it is stated that it was forwarded to the State Government on 21.8.2004, the date when petitioner filed representation and the State Government asked for comments of District Magistrate. Rohtas vide its letter dated 24.8.2004 and after making necessary enquiry with regard to the facts alleged in the representation of petitioner parawise comments were submitted by District Magistrate, Rohtas, The allegation of petitioner that his representation was lot placed before the Advisory Board has been denied and it is submitted that State Government also considered the representation of petitioner and rejected it in accordance with law. In another affidavit filed by' respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely, Home Commissioner, Bihar and Incharge Under Secretary to the Government, in the Department of Home (Police) it is stated that from the criminal antecedents and grounds of detention it is clear that petitioner is involved in kidnapping, murder and business of Heroin and is a member of International gang and has created a sensation by killing the political persons. The detention order dated 24.7.2004 was sent to Government for approval and it was approved by the Government on 31.7.2004 and was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 3.2.2004. About the representation of the petitioner dated 21.8.2004 the case of respondents 3 and 4 is that the Superintendent, Adarsh Jail, Beur, Patna, sent the representation of the petitioner by his letter No.4217 dated 21.8.2004 which was received in the Home (Police) Department on 24.8.2004 and on the same day comments were called upon by the Government from the District Magistrate, Rohtas, vide letter No. 9261 dated 24.8.2004 and meantime representation of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board on 2.9.2004 and Advisory Board submitted its opinion through Deputy Registrar of this Court vide letter No. 18 dated 3.9.2004. After receipt of comments of District Magistrate, Rohtas the matter was considered by Section Officer, Deputy Secretary, Home Secretary and by Government and representation was rejected and was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.9.2004. According to respondents 3 and 4 there is no delay in consideration of representation of petitioner and the same was considered and rejected in accordance with law. According to respondents 3 and 4 there is no delay in consideration of representation of petitioner and the same was considered and rejected in accordance with law. Their further case is that with all relevant documents, representation of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board and petitioner appeared before the Advisory Board in person and detaining authority was fully aware of the fact that petitioner was in judicial custody and was trying for bail but with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, detention order was passed. Mr. J.P. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in the counter affidavit of respondents 2 and 3 it is stated that petitioner has created sensation by killing the political persons and is a member of an International gang but respondents have not disclosed the names of those political persons said to have been killed by petitioner and the name of gang of which petitioner is said to be the member has also not been disclosed it is true that the aforesaid facts are mentioned in para-5 of counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4 but then in this para it is further stated that these statements are based on the criminal antecedents and grounds of detention. In the grounds of detention a number of cases including for the offence of murder are mentioned in which petitioner is involved and these grounds further show that petitioner was involved in the murder of one Butan Singh of Purnia and Inspector Pritam Singh of Delhi and attempted to commit murder of Suresh Pasi, MLA of Bhabhua and in his confessional statement he had planned to murder Water Resources Minister Sri Jagdanand Singh but could not succeed. We, therefore, find that on this ground if such statement in the aforesaid affidavit was made by respondents 3 and 4 which are admittedly not the authorities who had passed detention order it does not affect adversely the case of respondents. Mr. Shukla has further argued that that the initial order of detention does not mention the period of detention, therefore, on this ground alone the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Shukla has further argued that that the initial order of detention does not mention the period of detention, therefore, on this ground alone the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 5. The question of detaining authority's failure to specify the period of detent on in detention order came under consideration before the Bench of Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jawala Kant Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and others (1989 PLJR 153) where after relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab ( AIR 1952 SC 350 ) and Ashok Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration and others, (1982)2 SCC 403 , it was held that failure of the District Magistrate to specify the period of detention in the detention order will not vitiate the detention. 6. The next argument of Mr. Shukla is that there has been delay in the disposal of representation of the petitioner which has not been explained and on this ground also, the detention order cannot be upheld. He has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Mohan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2003 (2) PLJR 41 and Sanjay Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2004 (3) PLJR 140 . In both these cases the ratio laid down by Supreme Court that what is conclusive is not the period of delay but the explanation offered for the delay and unexplained delay of a few days may be fatal and longer delay may be condoned if proper explanation is submitted has been followed. 7. Mr. Amar Nath Singh, SC 8, appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that in this case petitioner filed representation on 21.8.2004 and on the same day It was forwarded to the State Government by the Superintendent, Adarsh Jail, Beur and State Government by its letter dated 24.8.2004 called upon comments from the District Magistrate, Rohtas who after making necessary enquiry with regard to the facts alleged in the representation of petitioner sent parawise comments vide his letter dated 10.9.2004 and comments were received by the State Government on 11.9.2004 anti the matter was considered by Section Officer, Deputy Secretary and Home Secretary on 13.9.2004 and by the Government on 14.9.2004 and the same was rejected and communicated to the petitioner on 16.9.2004. According to him, the aforesaid facts clearly show that there was no delay in considering the representation of the petitioner. We also find force in the argument of Mr. Singh, Whatever delay in disposal of the representation of petitioner occurred that has been explained. 8. The next contention on behalf of the petitioner is that so far his involvement in the case which was lodged on the allegation of his possessing Heroin he has already been granted bail by this Court considering the fact that on chemical examination it was found that the material found in possession of petitioner was a talcum powder and was neither psychotropic nor narcotic substance (Annexure-5 of reply to the counter affidavit). In this regard it is further submitted that in other cases mentioned in the grounds petitioner has been enlarged on bail and rest are pending for judicial verdict. From the grounds of detention (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondents 2 and 3) We find that petitioner is said to have been involved in a number of cases including murder, kidnapping and attempt to commit murder. Here we are not supposed to examine the merit of the cases in which petitioner is involved and it is for the satisfaction of detaining authority which is required for passing detention order under section 12(2) of the Act. 9. The argument on behalf of the petitioner that detaining authority was not aware of the fact that petitioner was in custody on the day of passing the order of detention and there was no likelihood of his being released on bail in near future does not find support because the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas, states that petitioner was in custody in District Jail, Sasaram and was trying for bail. 10. Considering the entire material on record We find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed.