KAPADIYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner-detenu has filed the present petition challenging the legality and validity of the impugned detention order dated 17-6-1983 passed by the District Magistrate Bharuch under Section 3 (2) of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980 on his being satisfied with respect to the present petitioner that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities like wheat rice levied sugar and pamolene oil essential to the community it was necessary to make an order directing him to be detained. The petitioner was also served with the order of detention as well as grounds of detention on the same data. ( 2 ) LOOKING to the contentions raised in the petition and the point pressed before us by Shri R. L. Patel learned Advocate for the petitioner it is not necessary to state in details the facts alleged in the grounds of detention. However it may be mentioned that there were some irregularities found in running the fair price shop by the petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner holds licence ND. 6/87 for running Govt. recognised fair price shop at village Caliba in Jaghadia taluka of Bharuch District; the petitioner also holds retail licence No. 101 under the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 That petitioner supplies cereals levy sugar pamolein and other essential articles on ration cards under various schemes of the Govt. On 24-5-1988 by permit No. 908038 the petitioner had purchased 30 quintals of wheat 30 quintals of superfine rice 5 quintals of sugar and 3 quintals of gur and 800 kgs. of pamolein oil from the Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation godown at Jaghadia; that the said stock was loaded in a truck No. GTK 2411 and was being taken through Netrang to the petitioners fair price shop at village Caliba; that in the meanwhile on the way the petitioner had unloadad a stock of 15 quintals of wheat 15 quintals of rice and I quintal and 90 kgs. of pamolein oil from the said truck and kept the same in the room hired by Sikanderkhan Selankimat at village Kadvali for selling the same at high rate in blackmarket; that thereafter the said truck was stopped at village Netrang by the Prant Officer and stock of 15 quintals of wheat 15 quintals of superfine rice 5 quintals of sugar and quintal 90 kgs. of pamolein was found; that the petitioner has thus diverted 15 quintals of wheat 15 quintals of rice 1 quintal 90 kgs. of pamolein oil from the stock obtained from the godown on 24-5-1988 by permit and that the said stock has not been brought to the fair price shop and the same had been sold at high price in blackmarket. Some other irregularities are also mentioned in the grounds of detention which not be referred to. ( 3 ) VARIOUS contentions have been raised in this petition challenging the said detention order. However Mr. H. L. Patel learned Advocate for the petitioner has pressed before us contention which is raised in para 14 of the petition. He submits that the representation was made by the petitioner-detenu to various authorities including the Central Govt. on 13-7-1988 and that the said representations to the respondents No. 1. and 2 and 3 were sent through jail on the same day. He further submits that there is great delay in considering the representation made by the petitioner through jail by the respondents No. 1 2 and 3. At the hearing Mr. Patel submits that the petitioners representation made to the General Govt. has not been considered so far. ( 4 ) ON this point affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the Central Govt. by Shri Dau Dayal Deputy Secretary Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies (Depart. of Civil Supplies) and referring to the avernments made in para-14 of the petition it is pointed out that no representation has been received from the detenu by his Department so far and the question of consideration of the same does not arise. ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter it was necessary for us to ascertain as to whether representation was in fact made to the Central Govt. or not. On perusal of the representation which we have seen from the file of the State Govt. ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter it was necessary for us to ascertain as to whether representation was in fact made to the Central Govt. or not. On perusal of the representation which we have seen from the file of the State Govt. it is clear that in fact representation was a common representation made to all the these authorities and a perusal of the covering letter shown to us by the jail authorities it is clear that the representation to the Central Govt. also sent on 15-7-1988 along with forwarding letter dt. 14-7-1988 by registered post ( 6 ) IT was important to note that as the representation was sent to the State Govt. also and it was received by Special Branch of the Food and Civil Supplies Department Gandhinagar on 14 at 2. 40 p. m. and thereafter it has been rejected by the Minister concerned after considering the same on 18 We have also perused the file of the State Govt. and we have seen that after the representation was rejected by the State Govt. para-wise remarks/ comments on the said representation along with copy of the representation made to the State Govt. was sent to the Central Govt. vide covering letter dated 21 by registered post. Thus it is clear that not only the Jail Authorities but also the State Government in its turn sent representation of the petitioner to the Central Government. In spite of this it is surprising that such an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the Central Government. ( 7 ) IN any view of the matter once when the representation is made by the detenu and handed over the same to the Jail Authority the detenu should not be deprived of his valuable right to have his detention revoked by the Central Government. It may be failure on the part of either Jail Authorities or the State Govt. to forward the detenus representation to the Central Govt. In the present case it is clear that in fact the Jail authorities are also the State Government have sent the representation o the petitioner to the Central Government. On this point Mr. It may be failure on the part of either Jail Authorities or the State Govt. to forward the detenus representation to the Central Govt. In the present case it is clear that in fact the Jail authorities are also the State Government have sent the representation o the petitioner to the Central Government. On this point Mr. H. L. Patel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Singh and another v. State of Punjab AIR 1982 SC 1 wherein relying on earlier judgements of that court the Supreme Court has observed as under: Failure on the part either of the Jail Superintendent or the State Government to forward the detenus representation to the Central Government deprives the detenu of the valuable right to his detention revoked by that Government. As a result the continued detention of the detenu is rendered illegal. In the present case also though the jail authority as well as the State Government have sent representation on the petitioner to the Central Government the Central Govt. has not considered the same saying that it has not received the same. Under the circumstances the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the continued detention of the petitioner is therefore illegal. ( 8 ) IN view of what is stated above the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The continued detention of the petitioner-detenu is held to be illegal. The petitioner-detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if no more required in any other case. .