ORDER By the Court.-In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders of his detention dated 22.6.2011 and subsequent orders passed under the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act. 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). 2. The short question raised on behalf of petitioner is that in the detention order dated 22.6.2011 the petitioner was not apprised that he had right to make representation before the detaining authority-Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Chatra, also though the petitioner was informed that he could place his written representation, if any, to the State Government, through Superintendent of Jail, Chatra. 3. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 2504 , State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya, in which it was inter-alia held that: "The only logical and harmonious construction of the provisions of the Act would be that in a case where an order of detention is issued by an officer, under Section 3(2) notwithstanding the fact that he is required to forthwith report the factum of detention together with the grounds and materials to the State Government and notwithstanding the fact that the Act itself specifically provides for making a representation to the State Government under Section 8(1), the said detaining authority continues to be the detaining authority until the order of detention issued by him is approved by the State Government within a period of 12 days from the date of issuance of detention order. Consequently, until the said detention order is approved by the State Government the detaining authority can entertain a representation from a detenu and in exercise of his power under the provisions of Section 21 of Bombay General Clauses Act could amend, vary or rescind the order, as is provided under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Act. Such a construction of powers would give a full play to the provisions of Section 8(1) as well as Section 14 and also Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act. Such a construction of powers would give a full play to the provisions of Section 8(1) as well as Section 14 and also Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act. This being the position, non-communication of the fact to the detenu that he could make a representation to the detaining authority so long as the order of detention has not been approved by the State Government in a case where an order of detention is issued by an officer other than the State Government under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Act would constitute an infraction of a valuable right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution." 4. It is further submitted that the provisions considered in the said case are in para materia with the provisions of the Act and the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act and therefore, relying on the said judgment another judgment reported in 2008 (I) East Cr C 18 (Pat), Binod Yadav v. State of Bihar, has been relied upon. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pranay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned orders and submitted that in such matters of public concern the petitioner should not be given benefit of technicalities. He also submitted that petitioner is not only involved in several cases of criminal nature but he also holds influential position in JPC, a banned extremists organisation and he is an anti social element. The said organisation is threat to public tranquility. He further submitted that the petitioner is threatening shop keepers and contractors for levying money even from confinement and if he is released on bail, it will be against public interest. 6. On this, Mr. Amitabh Kumar Tiwary, on instructions from the petitioner, submitted that to overcome the apprehension of the State the petitioner will give surety bond and will appear periodically before the concerned authority, as may be directed by this Court, for the remaining period of detention, if released from jail. 7. 6. On this, Mr. Amitabh Kumar Tiwary, on instructions from the petitioner, submitted that to overcome the apprehension of the State the petitioner will give surety bond and will appear periodically before the concerned authority, as may be directed by this Court, for the remaining period of detention, if released from jail. 7. It appears that after considering similar provisions of law, in the case of Santosh Shankar Acharya (supra), it was inter-alia held that the detaining authority should communicate the fact to the detenu that he could make representation to the detaining authority so long as the order of detention has not been approved by the State Government, in a case where an order of detention is issued by an officer other than the State Government failing which it would constitute an infraction of valuable right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 8. In the present case, the order of detention dated 22.6.2011 issued by the District Magistrate, itself indicated that the petitioner could make his written representation, if any, to the State Government through Superintendent on Jail, Chatra but it is not indicated that the he could make representation before him also within the period of 12 days or till the State Government approves the order of detention. The order of detention was approved in this case by the State Government on 2.7.2011 i.e. within 12 days of the detention order. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation on 16.7.2011 before the State Government through the Superintendent of Jail, Chatra. It is true that after the approval of the detention order on 2.7.2011 the detaining authority became functus offico in view of the judgment reported in 2006 (10) SCC 725 . Sri Anand Hanumathsa Katare v. Additional District: Magistrate and others, relied upon on behalf of the State, but unless the petitioner was informed that he could make representation before the detaining authority also within 12 days or till the order is approved by the State Government, the same would be against the law laid down in the case of Santosh Shankar Acharya (supra) case. 9. In the result, the orders of detention of the petitioner is set aside. Petitioner is directed to be released, if not wanted in any other case. Within a week from the date of his release, petitioner will furnish two sureties of Rs. 9. In the result, the orders of detention of the petitioner is set aside. Petitioner is directed to be released, if not wanted in any other case. Within a week from the date of his release, petitioner will furnish two sureties of Rs. 20,000/- each before the Superintendent of Police, Chatra and he will give an undertaking that he will appear before the local police station for the rest of the period of his detention i.e. up to June, 2012 once in a month failing which the sureties shall stand forfeited and appropriate action could be taken against him. 10. As prayed by State counsel, let a copy of this order be handed over to him and be communicated to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, by Fax. 11. This writ petition thus stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.