ORDER Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. 1. Heard. In the present writ petition, the petitioner questions the order of detention passed by the Collector and District Magistrate-2nd respondent as confirmed by the 1st respondent under G.O. Rt. No. 2941, dated 23.8.2014. Though the aforesaid detention order is questioned on various grounds, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his submissions only with reference to the grounds raised under Para 5(H) as well as additional ground sought to be raised at Ground No. 5(x) as per WPMP No. 38127 of 2014. 2. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is placing reliance upon the provisions of Section 8(1) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities etc., Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). For the sake of convenience, Section 8(1) of the Act is extracted hereunder: "8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order:--(1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but, not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the Government." 3. Ground No. 5(x), which is raised as an additional ground, is as follows: "The detaining authority erred in passing the detention order taking into consideration of the incidents, which are subject-matter of earlier detention order dated 23.6.2014 and as such the detention order is based on non-existing grounds. It is submitted that after revocation or expiry of the previous order, no fresh order can be passed on the grounds on which order was revoked or expired." 4. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that earlier detention order, dated 23.6.2014, was communicated to the Government for its proposal. However, the proposal was rejected with the remarks that it was received after lapse of stipulated time. Consequently, the said order was not confirmed by the Government. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the grounds for detention in support of the said order therefore cannot be used for the purpose of passing a fresh detention order, which is impugned herein. 5. Consequently, the said order was not confirmed by the Government. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that the grounds for detention in support of the said order therefore cannot be used for the purpose of passing a fresh detention order, which is impugned herein. 5. So far as the ground with reference to Section 8(1) of the Act is concerned, it is not in controversy that the detention order was passed on 12.7.2014 and the same together with the grounds of detention was served on the detenu on 20.7.2014 and it is beyond 5 days stipulated under Section 8(1) of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, in Paragraph 8', it is accepted that the order of detention and the grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 20.7.2014 and the same were acknowledged and countersigned by the Jailor, Central Prison, Rajahmundry. 6. The said specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner so far as the factual date with regard to communication of the order of detention is concerned, there is no controversy. The legal position in respect of the aforesaid submission is already settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack, AIR 1969 SC 43 . It is appropriate to extract Para 6' thereof, which reads as follows: "The grounds in support of the order serve on the appellant ran into fourteen typed pages and referred to his activities over a period of thirteen years, beside referring to a large number of Court proceedings concerning him and other persons who were alleged to be his associates. Mere oral explanation of a complicated order of the nature made against the appellant without supplying him the translation in script and language which he understood would in our judgment, amount to denial and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order. The order made by the District Magistrate, Cuttack not having been followed up by service within five days as provide by Section 7(1) of the communication to him of the grounds on which the order was made must be deemed to have come invalid and any subsequent detention of the appellant was unauthorised." 7. This Court already considered similar ground raised with regard to detention order, in WP No. 22250 of 2014, dated 17.9.2014. 8. This Court already considered similar ground raised with regard to detention order, in WP No. 22250 of 2014, dated 17.9.2014. 8. The issue in question, therefore, stands squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and this Court. In view of that, it is not necessary to go into the second contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 9. Hence, while leaving all other contentions raised by the petitioner open, the order of detention is set aside and the detenu shall, therefore, be released forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Petition allowed