JUDGMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J.:---The petitioner Saileshkumar Jain challenges the order of detention of his brother Mukesh Bhanwarlal Jain passed by the 1st respondent on 1st April 1991 under section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Admittedly, the order of detention was executed on 30th August 1991 and the detenu is in custody since then. 2. Even though other grounds have been raised in the petition, one additional ground by way of amendment with the leave of the Court was urged by the petitioner. The said added ground is to the effect that the detenu's representation dated 26th September 1991 addressed to the Advisory Board and the Minister for State for Home Affairs was despatched on behalf of the detenu and at the foot of the said representation a request was made to the authorities concerned to forward a copy of the same for consideration to the Central Government. In spite of this request, the State Government failed to forward a copy thereof for consideration to the Central Government. Shri Satpute, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India, has not filed any affidavit-in-reply but, on instructions, has stated that the Union of India has not received any copy of the representation of the detenu and hence the same has not been considered. 3. Shri Merchant, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, urges that by failing to forward a copy of the representation to the Central Government as desired by the detenu, the State Government has breached the detenu's right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and has failed thereby to afford an effective opportunity to the detenu for making a representation even to the Central Government. 4. The 1st respondent had already filed his affidavit-in-reply to the main petitioner but after the added ground of challenge, an affidavit is filed today on behalf of the State of Maharashtra by Shri A.M. Zanzane, Desk Officer, Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. In paragraph 2 of the said affidavit, this is what has been stated on behalf of the Home Department: "I say that the detenu had addressed the representation in question to the Chairman, Advisory Board, and to the State Government. He has not addressed the representation either to the Central Government nor did he endorse a copy to the Central Government. Only one copy of the representation was sent. He has not addressed the representation either to the Central Government nor did he endorse a copy to the Central Government. Only one copy of the representation was sent. Since the representation was not addressed to the Central Government, the Central Government may not be able to consider the said representation and hence it was not sent to the Central Government. ....." 5. Smt. R.P. Desai, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Maharashtra, argued that it was not incumbent upon the State Government to forward a copy of the representation of the detenu to the Central Government for the simple reason that the representation was not addressed to the Central Government. She also contended that even if a copy of the representation would have been sent to the Central Government, the Central Government would not have considered it as it was not addressed to the Central Government. 6. Having considered the facts and submissions, we are of the opinion that the stand taken by the State Government is unsustainable. The spirit of the legislation as well as Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has to be borne in mind in dealing with cases affecting the personal liberty of an individual. Article 22(5) also enjoins upon the authorities to afford a detenu the earliest opportunity of making a representation. Where, therefore, a detenu in his representation makes a request that his representation may also be considered by some other authority indicated by him, it is the bounden duty of the said authority who has received the representation, to forward a copy thereof to the concerned authority indicated therein. The contention of the State Government that it was not addressed to the Central Government and therefore, the Central Government would not have considered it is also not proper. Whether it is addressed at the head of the representation or whether a request is made at the bottom of the representation, it is just a mere formality of expressing the intention of the detenu in respect of the authority who should consider the representation. 7. Whether it is addressed at the head of the representation or whether a request is made at the bottom of the representation, it is just a mere formality of expressing the intention of the detenu in respect of the authority who should consider the representation. 7. In his representation dated 26th September 1991 sent to the State Government and the Advisory Board, the detenu in paragraph 7 thereof made a request as follows :--- "In the light of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and submissions, I humbly pray that the impugned order date 1-4-1991 be revoked and I may be set at liberty forthwith." Then, in paragraph 8, the detenu has stated the following :--- "This representation may also be considered favourably for revocation of the impugned order by the Central Government. A copy of this representation may kindly be sent to the Central Government." 8. A plain reading of paragraph 8 would show that the detenu's representation for revocation of the order of detention should also be considered favourably by the Central Government as the detenu had made a speaking request to the State Government for forwarding a copy of his representation to the Central Government. He has thereby expressed his clear-cut-intention that he desired his representation also to be considered by the Central Government. It does not matter whether the representation was addressed to the Central Government at the head of the representation or not. The representation is the body of the representation and not the formal addresses and dates. 9. We are basing this reasoning on the latest ruling of the Supreme Court in 1991(3) Crimes page 275: A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1983 in the matter of (Amir Shad Khan and another v. L. Hmingliana and others)1, decided on 9th August, 1991. paragraph 6 of the said decision is relevant for our purposes. 9. We are basing this reasoning on the latest ruling of the Supreme Court in 1991(3) Crimes page 275: A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1983 in the matter of (Amir Shad Khan and another v. L. Hmingliana and others)1, decided on 9th August, 1991. paragraph 6 of the said decision is relevant for our purposes. The same is reproduced below :--- "It must be realised that when a person is placed under detention he has certain handicaps and if he makes a request that a representation prepared by him may be forwarded to the Central Government as well as the State Government for consideration after taking out copies thereof it would be a denial of his right to represent to the Central Government if the Detaining Authority as well as the State Government refuse to accede to his request and omit to forward his representation to the Central Government for consideration. It is difficult to understood why such a technical and rigid view should be taken by the concerned authorities in matters of personal liberty where a person is kept in preventive detention without trial. Detenus may be literate or illiterate, they may have access to legal advice or otherwise, they may or may not be in a position to prepare more than one copy of the representation and if they make a request to the authorities which have the facilities to take out copies to do so and forward them for consideration to the Central Government, would it be just and fair to refuse to do so? In such circumstances refusal to accede to their request would be wholly unreasonably and in total disregard of the right conferred on the detenu by Article 22(5) of the Constitution read with section 11 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Detaining Authority as well as the State Government were not justified in taking a hyper-technical stand that they were under no obligation to take out copies of the representations and forward them to the Central Government. We think that this approach on the part of Detaining Authority and the State Government has robbed the appellants of their constitutional right under Article 22(5) read with section 11 of the Act to have their representation considered by the Central Government. The request of the detenus was not unreasonable. We think that this approach on the part of Detaining Authority and the State Government has robbed the appellants of their constitutional right under Article 22(5) read with section 11 of the Act to have their representation considered by the Central Government. The request of the detenus was not unreasonable. On the contrary the action of the Detaining Authority and the State Government was unreasonable and resulted in a denial of the appellants constitutional right. The impugned detention orders are, therefore, liable to be quashed. 10. For the reasons stated above, the order of detention will have to be quashed and set aside since the continued detention of the detenu is rendered illegal. 11. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 1st April 1991 passed against the detenu is quashed and set aside. The detenu be released forthwith, if not otherwise required. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed. -----