JUDGMENT David Annoussamy, J. : This is a petition by the friend of the detenu underArt.226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of habeascorpus quashing the order of detention passed against the detenu by theCommissioner of Police, Madras City on 17.3.1988 with a view to prevent him fromacting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as a Goonda. 2. The main ground urged before me by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation made by the detenu was not considered by the appropriate authority. This point was gone into elaborately by us in Elathe Mary v. Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Madras, W.P.No.7269 of 1988 dated 24.1.1989. 3. As per Sec.8 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, representation from the detenu has to be made to the State Government, which implies that it should be considered by the same. The State Government, being a composite body worksthrough anyone of its human agency in conformity with the rules of business. Asper the rules of business which were in force at the time when therepresentation was considered and rejected, the authority to deal with the sameis the Adviser to the Governor. 4. In the present case, the representation was considered and rejectedby the Secretary to Government on 30.4.1988, on the footing of some sort ofworking arrangement made by the Adviser without any authority. 5. The consideration of the representation is an important guaranteeof the right of the detenu under Art.22 of the Constitution of India arid whenit is not considered by the proper authority, as in the present case, the orderof detention becomes void. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order ofdetention is set aside. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.