S.S.Sandhawalia, J.

1. Whether the right of representation contended, in terms, by Clause (5) of Article 22 of the Constitution and equally by Sec.17(1) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, in part materia therewith can be extended to any and every friend or relation of the detenu (inevitably with the mandatory strictitude of an expeditious decision on such represenation) is the core question in this reference to the Full Bench.

2. The relevant facts deserve notice only within the narrow confines of the issue aforesaid which alone was debated before us. Vikash Chandra Mishra, the writ petitioner, was directed to be detained by the order dated the 27th of July, 1983 passed by the District Magistrate of Saharsa in exercise of his power under Sec.12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the Act) with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The aforesaid order of detention was duly approved by the State Government (vide its order dated the 6th of August, 1983) and in pursuance thereof the writ petitioner was arrested on the 11th of August, 1983 and was served with a copy of the said order as well as the grounds of detention in the District Jail, Saharsa. On the petitioners own showing, he was later produced before the Advisory Board on the 15th of September, 1983 and subsequently (vide annexure 2) it was communicated to him that the State Government had approved the order of his detention and directed that he be so detained till the 11th of August, 1984.

3. On the 22nd of, November, 1983 the present writ petition was filed challenging the detention on merits and factual grounds. However, in a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioner on the 25th of November, 1983 an additional ground was sought to be taken that on the J 5th of August, 1983 the writ petitioner had made a representation, in obedience to the direction contained in annexure 1, to the Deputy Secretary (Home), Police Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, which was forwarded through the Superintendent of Jail, Saharsa, and that the said respresentation was not at all considered by the State Government and no decision thereof was at all communicated to the petitioner.

4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 the factual stand with regard to the anti-social activity of the writ petitioner and the lack of satisfaction of the detaining authority was expressly controverted. It was categorically stated that the writ petitioner never filed any representation on the 15th of August, 1983 through the Superintendent, Jail, and this allegation was false and consequently no question of any decision on the said representation at all arose. However, in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it was indicated that merely a representation was filed by the father of the petitioner, which, after careful consideration, was rejected by the respondent State and the same was communicated to the father of the petitioner by letter No. 11816 dated the 17th of November, 1983.

5. The writ petitioner then chose to file a reply to the counter affidavit wherein he took the plea that the petitioners father had filed a representation before the State Government on the 27th of September, 1983, which had been rejected by the State Government and the order was communicated on the 17th of November. 1983. On this factual! matrix, the plea was sought to be raised that there was a delay of one month and 21 days sin disposing of the said representation made by the father of the writ petitioner, which remained unexplained on the record and, consequently, the detention order was void on this score.

6. When the present writ petition came up before the Division Bench, the only question raised on behalf of the writ petitioner was that the representation filed by the father of the writ petitioner was not expeditiously disposed of by the State Government, and relying on the