A.K.GANGULY, C.J. - (1.)THIS writ petition has been filed in the nature of Habeas Corpus challenging the order of detention dated 29.3.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Ganjam Chhatrapur under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. It appears that the detention of the petitioner was also confirmed by the Advisory Board its order dated 21.5.2007. By virtue of said order, the petitioner appears to have been detained with effect from 29.3.2007. There are several grounds in support of the said order of detention.
(2.)THE order of detention has been challenged by the petitioner (while in detention) only on the ground that in the said order the detaining authority has not recorded his satisfaction of the likelihood of the petitioner being granted bail in the criminal cases pending against him, although the detaining authority has taken into account the fact that the petitioner had filed a bail application before the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of the detaining authority recording his satisfaction that the petitioner is likely to be released on bail, such order of detention is to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on similar ground this Court has earlier passed order dated 28.2.2007 by quashing the order of detention in the case of Daba @ Sudarsan Das v. State of Orissa and two others, in W.P. (Crl.) No.516 of 2006.
Learned counsel for the State when asked, could not point out from the detention order, any recording of such satisfaction by the detaining authority. In fact the petitioner has raised a specific ground on that point in ground No. E at page -4 of the petition, which is quoted below :

"For that as already submitted when the detention order was passed the detenu was in intermediary judicial custody and in the grounds of detention, it has only been mentioned that after this bail application was rejected by the learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur, he has moved the Honble Court. Nowhere, the detaining authority has recorded his satisfaction that there is likelihood of the petitioner to be released on bail, as required. However, fact remains that on the very day bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Court of Sessions. In absence of requisite satisfaction, the detention order is unjustified and illegal."

(3.)IN the counter affidavit filed by opposite party No.2 (detaining authority) dated 30.8.2007 in paragraph -17 it is stated as follows :
"That in reply to the averments made in the Grounds D and E of the writ application this deponent has no comments to offer." From such denial it would be clear that opposite party No.2 has no comments to offer against the contention raised by the detainee.