Judgment : David Annoussamy, J. This is a writ petition by the wife of the detenu under Art.226 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed against him and setting him at liberty. 2. The order of detention was passed on 3.8.1988 by the State Government under Sec.3(1)(iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974), with a view to preventing the detenu from dealing in smuggled goods. 3. The detenu is an Indian national, who is having a jewellery shop in Coimbatore. On inspection, the officers concerned found gold bars having foreign marking ‘Union Bank of Switzerland’ 10 Tolas, 999.0’ and one gold bar was cut in one corner. All the three gold bars weighed to 349,750 gms. and was valued at Rs.1,08,740. The detenu was not in a position to justify the possession of this primary gold. 4. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his sole representation, which he addressed to the Advisory Board was not considered independently by the Government, which fact is accepted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It is well-settled law now that when a representation sent by the detenu either to the Advisory Board or to any other agency, as soon as it reaches the Government, it is the duty of the Government to consider the representation independently in compliance with Art.22(5) of the Constitution. The non-consideration of the representation by the Government which passed the detention order is violative of the Constitution and renders the order of detention as null. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of detention is set aside.