The provisions of Section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 are imperative and that if grounds of detention have to be served not later than five days from the date of detention, no departure can be made from the legal calculation of the five days.

1. The petitioner has applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Sec. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying, that, a writ in the nature of habeas corpus be issued, quashing an order of his detention, dated the 17th March, 1972, and setting him at liberty. There are three respondents in this case and the learned Advocate General has appeared for them.

2. The relevant facts may be stated as follows. The petitioner was arrested on the 17th March 1972 at Patna at 11-55 p.m. The arrest was by virtue of an order passed by the Governor of Bihar, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.3(1)(a)(ii) and Sec. 5 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Central Act No. 26 of 1971). The petitioner had been handed over an order of detention, with a Hindi translation of the same at the time of his arrest, and a copy of the order in English has been given as Annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner was taken to the Central Jail, Hazaribagh, and he reached there in the morning of, the 18th March. It is said, that, the petitioner was served with a copy of the grounds of detention on the 23rd March at 7.50 a.m., while he was in detention at Hazaribagh. A copy of the same has been appended as Annexure 2. The petitioner has alleged in this application, that, the grounds of detention served on him do not come within the purview of Sec.3 of the Act. It is alleged, that, the petitioners detention, in pursuance of the order, dated, the 17th March, 1972, was void, illegal and violative of the guarantees of personal liberty, as the grounds of detention had been served on him on the 23rd March, 1972, without recording reasons for the delayed service of the grounds. Many other grounds have been taken in the writ application, contending, that the petitioners detention is illegal, but, it is not necessary to refer to any other aspect of the matter, in view of the contentions raised in this Court.

A counter-affidavit was filed on the 10th May, 1972, on behalf of the respondents, alleging the following. It is mentioned, that, the grounds of detention were issued on the 22nd March and sent through a special messenger to Hazaribagh the same day for being served on the petitioner. As the messenger reached Hazaribagh late in the night of the 22nd March, the grounds were served on the petitioner on the 23rd March at 7-50 a.m. In this counter-affidavit a further statement was made as follows : "The detenu has already been informed about the reasons for this delay in Home Special Departments Order No. 4149 dated 8-4-1972, but he refused to accept the order."

Other parts of this counter-affidavit merely controvert the various allegations made in the original writ application about the reasons and the motive for which the petitioner was said to have been detained. The case opened for argument on the 18th May 1972 and, on that day, the petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit annexing therewith copies of two documents, marking them as Annexures 7 and 8. Annexure 7 is a communication sent from the State Government on the 4th May 1972 to the Superintendent of Jail. Hazaribagh. on the subject of detention of the petitioner. The communication had actually been signed on the 3rd May and it mentioned, that, after due consideration of the representation sent by the detenu, no reasons appear for withdrawing the order of detention. Annexure 8 is said to be a copy of the representation, which had been sent by the detenu to the State Government under Section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) dated the 23rd March, 1972.

In this representation, it was mentioned, that, the petitioner had been detained on the 17th March, 1972 at 11-55 p.m. and that he had been served with the grounds of detention on the 23rd March 1972 at 7-50 a.m. It was alleged in this representation, that, the grounds of detention had been communicated to the detenu in clear violatio