ORDER : Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C). 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of order no.5/CCA/01/71/2016-119 dated 09.01.2017 passed by the under Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management whereby and whereunder the detention order was passed against the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act has been extended till 17.04.2017. 3. A recommendation was made by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Garhwa on 23.08.2016 before the respondent no.4 recommending therein to detain the petitioner under section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act in view of the fact that the petitioner had eight criminal cases pending against him. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Garhwa, an order was passed by the respondent no.4 on 18.10.2016 in which the petitioner was detained under the Crime Control Act for a period of three months. The Detention order passed by the respondent no.1 was subsequently confirmed by the State government. After the recommendation was made by the Advisory Board the petitioner was to be detained till 17.01.2017. Subsequently vide letter no.5/CCA/01/71/2016-119 dated 09.01.2017, the under Secretary of the Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management had extended the period of detention of the petitioner for a further period of three months till 17.04.2017 which is under challenge in the present writ application. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the order dated 09.01.2017, the same reflects that the detention order was till 17.01.2017 and therefore, the further detention of the petitioner without there being any order of the competent court was bad in law. He, however, submits that since a clarification has been issued by the Department and has been brought by the State counsel in the supplementary counter affidavit, he is confining his argument only with respect to the fact that without getting the further order of detention confirmed by the Advisory Board in terms of section 20 of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, further detention of the petitioner being illegal deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani Vs. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cherukuri Mani Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in { (2015) 13 SCC 722 } and also an order passed in W.P. (Cr.)No.282 of 2016. 5. Mr. Binod Singh, learned S.C. (L&C) has referred to the counter affidavit and has stated that after the initial detention of the petitioner was coming to an end, the respondent no.4 on realizing that the peace and tranquility of the society will be under threat if the petitioner is set at large the period of detention of the petitioner has further been extended for a period of three months till 17.04.2017. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order passed in W.P.(Cr.)No.282 of 2016 will not guide the present case as the facts and circumstances of the present case are different from that of the case referred by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It has further been submitted that once the Advisory Board confirms the order of detention passed against the detenu, the prerogative lies with the State to extend the period of detention in terms of Section 22 of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act. 6. It appears that while passing an order under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act by the respondent no.4, the necessary mechanism with respect to getting the same confirmed by the Advisory Board had been duly followed. There does not seem to be any error or illegality with respect to the initial order of detention. However, the subsequent extension of the period of detention by virtue of order issued by the under Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, the period of extension of the detenu has been made till 17.04.2017. The order which has been brought on record and which has not been disputed by the State counsel, thus reveals that without taking the opinion of the Advisory Board as envisaged under Section 20 of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, the detention of the petitioner has been further extended. The order which has been brought on record and which has not been disputed by the State counsel, thus reveals that without taking the opinion of the Advisory Board as envisaged under Section 20 of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act, the detention of the petitioner has been further extended. In the case of Cherukuri Mani (supra), a note of caution had been given in the concluding portion of the said judgment wherein it has been held for reviewing the detention of the person the legislature has specifically provided the mechanism of “Advisory Board” and passing the detention order for a period of 12 months at a stretch without proper review forfeits the right of the detenu. In the present case also if the case of the petitioner/detenu is not reviewed by the Advisory Board from time to time, the same would virtually amount to passing the order of detention for a period of 12 months extendable by the period of three months each as has been done in the first order of extension passed by the under Secretary, Department of Home, Jail and Disaster Management. In the case of Prince Khan Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. passed in W.P. (Cr.)No.282 of 2016 while considering a similar issue, it was held as follows:- Reverting back to the case of Cherukuri (Supra), it has clearly been held that passing a detention order for a period of 12 months at a stretch without proper review is deterrent to the rights of the detenu. It was further indicated therein that the legislature had specifically provided the mechanism “Advisory Board” to review the detention of a person. The act of the State Government in extending the period of detention of the petitioners without referring such recommendation before the Advisory Board virtually amounts to passing of a detention order for a continuous period of 12 months since no review is being made by the most important wing in the entire structural aspect of recommendation of preventive detention of a detenu till its confirmation by the Advisory Board. The safeguard, which has been provided in favour of a detenu by the legislature has been given a complete gobye and such act on the part of the State definitely frustrates the very object and purpose of putting such mechanism of confirmation by a Advisory Board in the entire scheme of the Act with respect to preventive detention of a detenu. In such view of the matter, therefore, continuous detention the petitioners after the expiry of first three months of their detention is bad in the eyes of law and therefore the very orders passed separately in the case of the present petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside. These writ applications are allowed. 7. Taking a cue from the judgments referred to above, the continuous detention of the petitioner in absence of the detention of the petitioner being subjected to a review by the Advisory Board in terms of the provision of the Jharkhand Crime Control Act would be termed to be an illegal detention and beyond the purview of the powers conferred upon the Government by the said Act. 8. Thus on a proper appreciation of the factual as well as the legal aspects of the case, the further detention of the petitioner in terms of the order contained in 5/CCA/01/71/2016-119 dated 09.01.2017 being illegal, is hereby quashed and set aside with a further direction to release the petitioner, if not wanted in any other case. 9. This application stands allowed.