S.N.P.SINGH, J.

1. These two habeas corpus applications under Article 226 of the Constitution have been referred to a Full Bench for the decision of a common question of law and they are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. Bhagwan Singh, the petitioner of Cr. W. J. C. No. 183 of 1975, was lodged in Buxar Jail on the 21st of March, 1975, in connection with Itarhi P. S. Case No. 10 (2) 75 (State V/s. Unknown). On that very date a copy of the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate Bhojpur, under Sec.3 (1) (a) (ii) read with sub-section (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter to be called "the Act") was served on him. The grounds of detention were subsequently drawn up by the District Magistrate and were served on the petitioner on the 29th of March, 1975. The reasons for serving the grounds of detention beyond five days from the date of detention of the petitioner were not mentioned by the District Magistrate in the grounds of detention. Subsequently on the 3rd of April, 1975, the District Magistrate recorded the reasons and those were served on the petitioner on the 6th of April, 1975.

3. Sondhari Singh the petitioner of Cri. W. J. C. No. 187 of 1975, was taken in jail custody on the 6th of May, 1975, in pursuance of an order of detention dated the 3rd of May, 1975, passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, under Sec.3 (1) (a) (ii) read with sub-section (2) of the Act. A copy of the order of detention was served on the petitioner on the very day he was arrested. The grounds of detention were, however, served on him on the 19th of May, 1975. In the grounds of detention the District Magistrate recorded in detail the reasons for not serving them between the 11th of May, 1975, and the 18th of May, 1975.

4. It is an admitted position in both the cases that the District Magistrates did not record reasons for not serving the grounds for the period of first five days since the date of detention.

5. The common question of law, which falls for consideration in the two cases, is whether the reasons for each days delay have to be recorded when the delay in serving the grounds is more than five days since the date of detention or only reasons for the delay after five days and within fifteen days have to be recorded.

6. Section 8 (1) of the Act is the relevant section and it reads as under :

"8 (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than fifteen 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 appropriate Government."

The expression "as soon as may be" has been interpreted in a number of cases of this Court and the Supreme Court. In the case of Murat Patwa V/s. Province of Bihar, AIR 1948 Pat 135 a Full Bench of this Court held that the phrase "as soon as may be" as used in Sec. 4 of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 means as early as is reasonable in the circumstances of the particular case".

In that case it was observed as follows:-

"Beyond saying that it should ordinarily be possible to communicate the grounds to a detenu within a comparatively short period of time and that after the lapse of such a period the onus will shift to the authority in question to show that the grounds were served as soon as was reasonable, we think it better not to indicate any particular period as being sufficient to shift the onus of proof."

In the case of Tabarak Khan V/s. Province of Bihar, AIR 1950 Pat 228 it was observed that there was no decision to the effect that the words "as soon as may be" meant that the grounds of detention should be served in all cases within fifteen days from the date of the order of detention. In the case of Ujagar S