Judgment : David Annoussamy, J. This is a petition by the detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention and setting him at liberty. 2. The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate and Collector of Chengalpattu District at Kancheepuram on 28.3.1988 under Sec.3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as a bootlegger. The order of detention was approved on 8.4.1988 and later confirmed by the Government after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Boards. 3. The main ground urged before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner was not considered by the detaining authority, viz., the Government, but by the Secretary to Government and that therefore there was no valid consideration of the representation which fact vitiated the order. 4. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated as follows: “The under Secretary to Government passed orders on 11.5.1988 and the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government passed orders on 11.5.1988 rejecting the request of the detenu.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed before us the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kirti Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1621 and Smt.Kavitha v. The State of Maharashtra and others, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1641, in support of his contention. 6. The fact that the consideration of the representation and the rejection of the same by the order dated 11.5.1988 were effected by the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government is not disputed by the respondents. But, what the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends is that the Secretary to Government is empowered to consider the representation and pass orders thereon. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on his side relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sushila Mafatlal Sha, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2090. 7. Article 22(5) of the Constitution confers a very valuable right on a detained person in compelling the detaining authority to communicate to the detained person, the grounds on which the order has been made and to afforded him an earliest opportunity of making a representation against that order. 7. Article 22(5) of the Constitution confers a very valuable right on a detained person in compelling the detaining authority to communicate to the detained person, the grounds on which the order has been made and to afforded him an earliest opportunity of making a representation against that order. This would imply that the detaining authority will consider the representation and review, if necessary, the order passed. 8. We have carefully perused the authorities placed before us by both the parties and the following propositions emerge from those decisions: (A) The representation should be considered by the authority empowered to pass the order thereon. (B) The same human agency who passed the order of detention need not consider the representations. (C) When the authority is Government, the latter being a composite body the representation will have necessarily to be considered by a human agency. (D) The agency empowered to consider the representation may be different from the one empowered to pass the order of detention. (E) The human agency should be duly empowered by the Rules of Business of the Government. In the present case, as per the Rules of Business of the Government in Tamil Nadu, as it stands modified by G.O.Ms.No.325, dated 24.2.1988, the authority to deal with the files in which the Government has to pass orders under any law is the Adviser. But the Adviser in his turn without any authority has passed an office order dated 1.3.1988 in the nature of a working arrangement as per which the files relating to the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 shall be circulated to the adviser for the purpose of approval of detention order, confirmation of detention orders, temporary release of detenu, etc., and that the papers for orders on the representation from the detenu or on behalf of the detenu will be placed before the Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department. It is thus seen that the representation was not considered in this case by a person empowered to act on behalf of the Government by the Rules of Business. It is also worth mentioning that as per Sec.8 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 the representation of the detenu has to be made to the State Government. Therefore, the representation was not considered in accordance with law by a person empowered to act on behalf of the Government. It is also worth mentioning that as per Sec.8 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 the representation of the detenu has to be made to the State Government. Therefore, the representation was not considered in accordance with law by a person empowered to act on behalf of the Government. The consideration of the representation of the detenu is an important constitutional right under Article 22 of the Constitution and the violation of that right meant to protect the human rights of the individual is violative of the Constitution and is accordingly void. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless, required otherwise.