ORDER : RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AG for the State of Bihar. 2. The petitioner in this writ application is seeking quashing of the order dated 24.06.2025 as contained in Memo No. 7/CCA-10-08/25 x`0vk0 7885/Patna issued under signature of the Under Secretary, Home, Police Department, Government of Bihar in exercise of its power conferred under Section 23(1) and Section 24 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2024’). 3. By the impugned order, the State Government has been pleased to confirm the detention order dated 11.05.2025 in Case No. 96 (CCA)/2025 vide Memo No. 1402/Law issued under signature of the District Magistrate, Nawada by which the petitioner has been detained for six months till 10.11.2025 from the date of the order. 4. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had raised one submission which we have taken note of in our order dated 12.09.2025. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government has confirmed the order of detention without considering the representation of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submits that in similar circumstance, while considering the case of Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Yadav in Cr.WJC No. 2087 of 2025, this Court has opined in its order dated 15.09.2025 that there being no consideration of the representation given by the petitioner before passing the impugned order by the Government, the same would be liable to be set aside. 6. Learned AC to AG has drawn our attention towards Section 23 of the Act of 2024. It is submitted that in practice, whenever the order of detention is not interfered with by the Advisory Board, the Government is confirming the order of detention but where the Advisory Board reports that there is no sufficient cause for detention of a person, the Government revokes the detention order and the person so detained is released forthwith. 7. We have gone through the impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘P/1’. 7. We have gone through the impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘P/1’. For sake of clarity, we reproduce the order hereunder:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj x`g foHkkx ¼vkj{kh 'kk[kk½ vkns'k la[;k&7@lh0lh0,0&10&08@2025 x`0vk0@iVuk] fnukad& ekuuh; ijke'kZnkr` Ik"kZn] mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk vfHker fn;k x;k gS fd lquhy ;kno] firk&Lo0 lqjs'k ;kno] xzke& vCnyiqj iM+fj;k] Fkkuk& ukjnhxat] ftyk& uoknk dks fu:) fd, tkus gsrq i;kZIr dkj.k fo|eku gSAa vr% fcgkj vijk/k fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e] 2024 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k& 12@24½ dh /kkjk&23¼1½ ,oa /kkjk&24 esa iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj] ftyk nMakf/kdkjh] uoknk }kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk& 12¼2½ ds rgr fu:)h lquhy ;kno ds fo:) ikfjr fu:)kns'k Kkikad&1402&fof/k] fnukad&11-05-2025 dks lEiq"V djrh gS vkSj funs'k nsrh gS fd lquhy ;kno dks fnukad&11-05-2025 ls 10-11-2025 ¼X;kjg ebZ nks gtkj iPphl ls nl uoEcj nks gtkj iPphl½ rd vFkkZr N% ekg dh vof/k ds fy, fu:) j[kk tk;A fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls g0@& ¼eukst dqekj flUgk½ ljdkj ds voj lfpoA^^ 8. We have also considered the provision of Section 23 of the Act of 2024. Section 23 reads as under:- “23. Action upon the report of the Advisory Board.- 1. In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. 2. In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith.” 9. It is evident from sub-section (1) of Section 23 that where the Advisory Board has reported that there is sufficient cause for detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order. While in sub-section (1), the word ‘may’ has been used, in sub-section (2), it is stated that where the Advisory Board has reported that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith. 10. While in sub-section (1), the word ‘may’ has been used, in sub-section (2), it is stated that where the Advisory Board has reported that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith. 10. Thus, in our opinion, while sub-section (2) of Section 23 makes it mandatory for the Government to revoke the detention order and cause the person concerned to be released forthwith if the Advisory Board does not find sufficient cause for the detention of a person, so far as sub-section (1) is concerned, it confers discretion upon the Government either to confirm the detention order or take an independent view, if the Government thinks so. 11. This Court further finds that the scheme of the Act of 2024 provides for an opportunity to the person proposed to be detained to make a representation against the order of detention to the State Government. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 2024 provides for this opportunity to such person who is detained in pursuance of a detention order. 12. In the case of Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Yadav, this Court having gone through sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 2024 recorded its opinion in paragraph ‘8’ as under:- “ 8. It is evident that a safeguard has been provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the BCC Act, 2024 by way of providing an opportunity of making representation by a person detained under an order of detention. This right to submit representation cannot be treated as an empty formality.” 13. In our considered opinion, the impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘P/1’ suffers from identical infirmity which we have noticed in the case of Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Yadav. 14. In result, we set aside the impugned order as contained in Annexure ‘P/1’ and direct the competent authority of the State Government to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. Needless to say that while passing a reasoned order, the competent authority shall deal with the submissions of the petitioner as contained in his representation. 16. 15. Needless to say that while passing a reasoned order, the competent authority shall deal with the submissions of the petitioner as contained in his representation. 16. If the speaking/reasoned order is not passed by the competent authority within two weeks from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order, the detention order shall be treated as not confirmed and the petitioner would be entitled to get released immediately. 17. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 18. Office shall communicate the order immediately.