Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this Criminal Writ Application the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 17.7.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna in exercise of his power under sec. 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of non-application of mind by the detaining authority nor there were sufficient grounds to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Learned counsel further submitted that the representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of almost after a month and thus the authorities wholly erred in confirming his detention. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been made victim of the circumstances inasmuch as that his lands were being grabbed by unauthorised persons including the Inspector of Police of Alamganj Police Station for which several civil disputes are pending in the competent Civil Court and in one of the cases i.e. Alamganj PS. Case No. 124 of 2006, the same Police Inspector of Alamganj police station is the informant. These facts were already disclosed in the representation filed by the petitioner and still then the authorities rejected his representation after more than a month without application of mind. 4. The First Information Report pertaining to Alamganj Police Station Case No. 124 of 2006 was produced before us for our perusal; from which, it appears that Ganesh Mishra, Inspector of Police of Alamganj P.S. himself is the informant and he appears to be on litigating terms with the petitioner as would appear from Annexure 6. 5. it is not known to the court as to under what circumstance, the Police Inspector lodged the first information report where accusations were made of extortion against the petitioner. 6. Learned Government Pleader No. 10 appearing for the respondents, with reference to two sets of counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner was detained as the detaining authority was fully satisfied that his criminal activities were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is further submitted that from the grounds of detention, it would be manifest that he was indulging in criminal activities; one after another causing disturbance to public at large. It is further submitted that from the grounds of detention, it would be manifest that he was indulging in criminal activities; one after another causing disturbance to public at large. Learned counsel, however, could not explain the delay in disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner as alleged nor could he satisfy the court about the materials available before the detaining authority for detention of the petitioner under Sec.12(2) of the Act. 7. In paragraphs 13 and 15 of the representation, it is categorically stated that the representation filed by the petitioner dated 11.8.2006 was disposed of on 20.9.2006 by the State Government almost after more than a month. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Bihar, Patna, it is stated that the representation of the petitioner was received in the department on 12.8.2006 which was rejected on 14.9.2006 and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide Home (Police) Department memo no. 10571 dated 20.9.2006. The delay in disposal of the representation, however, has not been explained. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the representation filed by the petitioner dated 11.8.2006 was rejected on 14.9.2006, almost after a month and that too without any explanation. 8. In the case of Smt. Khatoon Begum and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors: reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1077, it was held by the Apex Court that delay in consideration of representation renders the detention order invalid. Sec.17 of the Act envisages that when a person is detained pursuant to a detention order, shall be afforded the earliest opportunity to the detenu for making a representation, meaning thereby that the representation has to be disposed of by the earliest possible. 9. In the instant case, the detention order is dated 17th July, 2006 whereas his representation was forwarded by the jail authorities on 11.8.2006 and the same was disposed of on 14.9.2006. There appears to be delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner and this, in our opinion, would be a valid ground not to allow the order of detention to continue any more. 10. There appears to be delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner and this, in our opinion, would be a valid ground not to allow the order of detention to continue any more. 10. Besides these questions, it appears that there was insufficient material before the District Magistrate to satisfy himself to detain the petitioner under the provisions of the Act as only two grounds have been shown making out a case of extortion against the petitioner which, in our opinion, are related to law and order and not the public order. The activities of the petitioner as depicted in the order do not appear to be such to affect the public order and the tranquility of people. The worst aspect of the matter is that the Police Inspector who is on litigating terms with the petitioner himself became the informant in one of the cases which has been shown as ground no. 2 pertaining to Alamganj P.S. Case No. 124 of 2006. 11. From the representation filed by the petitioner which has been brought on record and marked as Annexure 6, it is manifestly clear that sufficient facts were disclosed by the detenu showing that Ganesh Mishra, Inspector of Police who is one of the informants, was on litigating terms with the petitioner and he used to exert force upon him to part with his land. The representation of the petitioner, in this view of the matter, would have been dealt with effectively by the State authorities. In case of detention where liberty of a person is curtailed, full opportunity should be given to him to represent and his representation is supposed to be disposed of effectively and expeditiously. 12. From the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner as contained in Annexure 8, it does not appear that the State authorities had taken pains to consider his grievances nor they had bothered to dispose of the representation as early as possible as envisaged under Sec.17 of the Act. Delay of more than a month in disposal of the representation of the detenu is itself a ground to invalidate the order of detention. Delay of more than a month in disposal of the representation of the detenu is itself a ground to invalidate the order of detention. The authorities, particularly the District Magistrate could have applied his mind to the full facts of this case and only being satisfied that the criminal activities of the petitioner were found to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or were in any manner to disturb the tranquility of public at large, could have passed the order of detention. 13. Powers as envisaged under the provisions of the Act are not to be exercised in casual manners rather while passing the order of detention due consideration should be given to all the relevant facts. Mere report submitted by the police officers would not be sufficient for the District Magistrate to detain a person under the provisions of the Act rather he has to apply his own mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. From the facts as enumerated above, it appears to us that the power under Sec.12(2) of the Act has been exercised by the District Magistrate in a most casual manner and at the same time, the State authorities while disposing of the representation of the petitioner also rejected the same in casual and cavalier fashion. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the conduct of Ganesh Mishra, the Inspector of Police of Alamganj Police Station who is one of the informants, requires to be scrutinized by the State authorities particularly by the Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar himself and the District Magistrate, Patna, who is the detaining authority in this case, should be more cautious and careful in future while passing such orders. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, the detention of the petitioner is held to be invalid and not sustainable in law. 17. In the result, this application is allowed. Order impugned detaining the petitioner is hereby set aside and the petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. 18. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna.