Judgment :- K.M. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the detenu himself under Article 226 of the constitution seeking for quashing the impugned order of detention dated 9. 3. 1992 passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Chengalpauu, M. G. R. District at Kancheepuram, the second respondent herein, under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), herein after referred to as the Act, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ( 2 ) THE detenu came to the adverse notice of the authorities as a boot-legger in view of the three cases referred to in the preamble to the grounds of detention and was detained in view of the ground case by the detaining authority, namely, the second respondent under Section 3 (1) of the Act. ( 3 ) THOUGH Mr. P. Venkatasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the impugned order of detention on many grounds, he has confined his arguments to ground (h) in the affidavit wherein it is contended as follows: Even though my wife on my behalf in her representation asked for the bail application and bail order, the judgment of other persons mentioned in the adverse cases, and the copy of the F. I. R. in Crime Nos. 1158, 1159/91, 73, 4, 75/92, 112, 114/92, 340, 341, 342/92 and the letter of the Magistrate No. 333/92 dated 13/2/1992 were not furnished either to me or to my wife to enable me to give an effective representation and thus my right to prove my innocence has been taken away by/the authorities. On this ground as well, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) IT is to be noted that though the writ petition was admitted on 30/3/1992 and the respondents entered appearance on 15/6/1992 and took time for filling counter, in spite of several adjournments, no counter has been filed, by any of the respondents. The averments in the affidavit, therefore, stand unrebutted. ( 4 ) IT is to be noted that though the writ petition was admitted on 30/3/1992 and the respondents entered appearance on 15/6/1992 and took time for filling counter, in spite of several adjournments, no counter has been filed, by any of the respondents. The averments in the affidavit, therefore, stand unrebutted. However, learned counsel for the petitioner produced before us a copy of the representation sent by him to the first respondent as well as the order of rejection received by him to show that in the representation the detenu asked for copy of the documents referred to in the above grounds and in the rejection order. There is absolutely no mention about the request for furnishing of copies of the documents. Even though no counter affidavit has been filed, we asked the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, whether the request of the detenu had been considered regarding supply of documents. He fairly submitted that there is nothing available in the file with regard to the consideration of the request of the detenu and the furnishing of the copies of the documents. It is settled law that whenever a detenu asks for copies of the documents in his representation it is the duty of the concerned authority to furnish the same and if they were not furnished to the detenu, the reasons there for must be stated. If the concerned authority failed to consider the representation of the petitioner for copies of documents so as to enable him to make an effective representation, it would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the detenu asked for copies of various documents which are relevant and which according to him arc material for challenging the impugned order of detention. Admittedly, they were not furnished to the detenue till this date and his request has not been considered. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of detention is vitiated on the ground of violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution as the detenu was deprived from making effective representation to the impugned order on account of non furnishing of the copies of documents asked for by him. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of detention is vitiated on the ground of violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution as the detenu was deprived from making effective representation to the impugned order on account of non furnishing of the copies of documents asked for by him. ( 5 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.