Judgment 1. Heard the parties in detail at the stage of admission itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of detention dated 22.12.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Vaishali, against the petitioner u/s. 12(2) of the Bihar Crime Control Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as "Act"). It is not in dispute that the same order has been affirmed by the State Government by order dated 8.2.2007 and the petitioner is authorised to be detained in custody till 22.12.2007. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, the inpugned order of detention contained in memo no. 608 of the District Magistrate, Vaishali was challenged mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it was shown from the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1-3 that the representation filed by the petitioner against the order of detention dated 22.12.2006 was received in the department on 8.1.2007. Thereafter by a letter dated 10.1.2007 the District Magistrate, Vaishali, was asked to furnish his comments in respect of petitioners representation. No comments were received from the District Magistrate till the representation was rejected on 18.1.2007 and communicated to the petitioner in jail on 19.1.2007. On the aforesaid facts it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that if the representation could be disposed of without comments of the District Magistrate, Vaishali, then it should have been done on receipt of the representation on 8.1.2007 or soon thereafter and should not have been kept pending for more than a week and rejected on 18.1.2007 without waiting for the arrival of the comments from the District Magistrate, Vaishali. It has also been argued that the rejection of the representation in the aforesaid circumstances shows non-application of mind to relevant facts because the comments asked for from the District Magistrate were still not available. 4. The other ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the detention order was passed, as indicated in the order itself, when the petitioner was in jail custody in connection with several criminal cases and except the bald statement in the order following the grounds that the bail petition of petitioner is filed in different courts for hearing and any time he may be released, no details have been given of any bail order passed in favour of the petitioner or any particular case in which bail application may be pending. On this ground also it has been submitted that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind. In support of this plea, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anant Sakharam Raut V/s. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 1987 SC 137 . The other judgment on the same point cited on behalf of the petitioner is of this court in the case of Binod Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar & Ors., 2006 2 PLJR 497 . 5. On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the aforesaid two judgments are distinguishable on facts because the impugned order of detention shows due application of mind to the fact that the petitioner was in custody in connection with several criminal cases and that he had filed bail application in some courts. It was also shown from the writ petition that admittedly, petitioner had obtained bail in several cases mentioned in the order of detention and admittedly, his bail application was pending in respect of some cases. According to the learned counsel for the State on the facts of the case it can not be said that the detaining authority had not applied its mind to the relevant facts relating to the custody of the petitioner in connection with the criminal cases and the likelihood of his getting bail because of filing of bail applications. 6. In view of the proposed order it is not necessary to decide this issue because on facts we find that the representation of the petitioner received by the department on 8.1.2007was disposed of after a delay of about ten days on 18.1.2007 without any relevant and valid explanation, particularly, when the representation was ultimately rejected on 18.1.2007 without waiting for the comments of the District Magistrate, Vaishali, which had been called for on 10.1.2007, the delay of about eight days since 10.1.2007 is clearly without any justified and valid reasons. Such a delay when it remains unexplained by any acceptable material amounts to violation of mandate of Art. 22 of the Constitution of India which requires the representation to be disposed of "as soon as may be". Such a delay when it remains unexplained by any acceptable material amounts to violation of mandate of Art. 22 of the Constitution of India which requires the representation to be disposed of "as soon as may be". Such mandate in clause (5) of Art. 22 of the Constitution of India stands breached in this case in view of the law already settled by the Apex Court in the case of Rajammal V/s. State of T.N. and Another, AIR 1999 SC 684 . That Judgment has been followed by this court in several cases including in the case of Umesh Singh V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2002 1 PLJR 419 . 7. In view of the aforesaid finding that the representation of the petitioner was disposed of after unexplained delay of at least eight days, the writ petition has to be allowed. It is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order of detention contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. 8. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.