Judgment :- Arunachalam, J. Petitioner herself is the detenu. She has prayed for issue of a habeas for her production before this Court, to be set free, after quashing the impugned order of detention dated 212. 1992 passed against her by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Central Act 46 of 1988), with a view to preventing her from engaging in possession and selling of Narcotic Drugs. 2. Brief facts which led to the passing of the impugned order of detention will have to be stated. At 9.30 p.m. on 29. 1991 petitioner was found in possession of five paper packets each containing about 300 mg. of brown sugar, at the junction of Naval Hospital Road 2nd Street, Periamet, Madras. Petitioner was arrested and case property seized. Crime No.1329of 1991 under Sec.21 of the Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic Substances Act was registered. Petitioner was produced before the concerned Magistrate and remand obtained. Seized brown sugar was sent for chemical analysis, and the report revealed that the contraband was Discetyl Morphine (brown sugar). Petitioner was released on bail on 110. 1991. 3. Against 8.20 p.m. on 25. 1992 almost in the same venue, petitioner was found in possession of ten paper packets containing about 300 grams each, brown sugar. Property was seized, petitioner was arrested produced before a Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. Crime No.431 of 1992 under Sec.21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was registered. Chemical analysis revealed that the contraband was Discetyl Morphine (brown sugar). Again petitioner was released on 25. 1992. 4. For a third time, at 7.30 p.m. on 26. 1992, as in the earlier cases, almost at the same venue, petitioner was found in possession of 30 paper packets each containing 300 mg. totalling to 9 grams of brown sugar. Crime No.539 of 1992 under Sec.21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was registered. Arrest and production before the Magistrate followed, to be again released on bail on 7. 1992. That the seizure was Discetyle Morphine was confirmed by the report of the Chemical Analyst. .5. In this background at 11.00 a.m. on 12. Crime No.539 of 1992 under Sec.21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was registered. Arrest and production before the Magistrate followed, to be again released on bail on 7. 1992. That the seizure was Discetyle Morphine was confirmed by the report of the Chemical Analyst. .5. In this background at 11.00 a.m. on 12. 1992 on information Inspector of Police, Law and Order, G-2 Periamet Police Station, proceeded to Naval Hospital Road and found the petitioner proceed-ing fast, towards Mattukara Veerapathiran Street. Petitioner was stopped and she was found in possession of 41 paper packets of brown sugar totalling about 13.670 grams. Rs.62 in cash stated to be sale proceeds was also seized from the petitioner. Statement of the petitioner was also recorded. She was arrested and produced before the concerned Magistrate, who remanded her to judicial custody. As in the past, report of the Chemical Analyst revealed that the seizure was Discetyle Morphine (brown sugar). After follow up action impugned order of detention was passed. 6. Mr.S. Ilamparithi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, urged two contentions, (1) there has been total non-application of mind by the detaining authority for the quantity of brown sugar allegedly seized was 13.670 grams, whole of which was forwarded for chemical analysis, through Court. However, the report of the Chemical analyst shows that all the 41 packets together contained only 5.460 grams of Discetlye Morphine. The further argument was that not only in the ground case, but in the adverse notice cases also, there was no correlation between the brown sugar seized and the brown sugar sent for chemical analysis; (2) the petitioner forwarded representations dt.21. 1993 to the State Government and the Central Government. Though the State Goverment had disposed of her representation on 2. 1992, the Central Government has chosen to reject her representation only on 123.1993 after considerable delay, not explained. .7. On these contentions, we have heard Mr.I.Subramaniam, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and Mr.Asokan, learned Addl.Central Government Standing Counsel. Both counsels were able to visualise, the glaring disparity between the quantity of brown sugar seized and sent for analysis, regarding which no explanation had been obtained by the detaining authority, before the impugned order was passed. First respondent’s counsel submitted, that there was no delay whatever in the disposal of the representation by the State Government, which had rejected the same on 2. First respondent’s counsel submitted, that there was no delay whatever in the disposal of the representation by the State Government, which had rejected the same on 2. 1993, after obtaining parawise remarks from the Commissioner of Police. Mr.Asokan placed before us the following details on the basis of instructions obtained from the second respondent. Representation dated 21. 1993 was received by the Central Govt.on 2. 1993. On the same day, parawise comments were called for from the State Government by speed post. On 12. 1993,a reminder to the State Government by registered post was forwarded. Yet reminder on 3. 1993 to the State Govt, by speed post was despatched. On 3. 1993, Central Government received the letter of the State Govt dated 252.1993. Representation was rejected on 13. 1993. hence, in so far as the Central Government is concerned, it had taken barely five days and the rest of the time had either been lost in transit or had been taken in getting comments from the State govt. The record, of dealing of the representation of the petitioner, in writing, signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, produced by Mr.K.Asokan, shall form part of court record. 8. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by either side. After threadbare auditing, we are of the view that the detenu is bound to succeed on both the grounds of challenge. It is possible to visualise that when a person is arrested with contraband, only a portion is taken out, for being forwarded to the laboratory, for chemical analysis, If that had been done, there would have been no anomaly, whatever. In the ground case, admittedly 13.670 grams of brown sugar was seized and the grounds of detention disclose that the seized contraband was sent for chemical analysis, through court. If that be so, Chemical Analyst must have received 13.670 grams of brown sugar and not 5.460 grams as disclosed in his report. The difference is not marginal, but it is so violent. The difference is about 2.1/2 times less than the seizure. The detaining authority must have asked for an explanation, called for further record, and satisfied himself, if only a portion of the seized contraband was forwarded to the laboratory for analysis. That not having been done, total non-application of mind, to a very vital issue, is apparent. The difference is about 2.1/2 times less than the seizure. The detaining authority must have asked for an explanation, called for further record, and satisfied himself, if only a portion of the seized contraband was forwarded to the laboratory for analysis. That not having been done, total non-application of mind, to a very vital issue, is apparent. Not only in the ground case, but in the adverse notice case also, the same lache is discernible. On the ground of non-application of mind, petitioner will be justified in pleading for quashing of the impugned order. 9. It is settled law, that representation of the detenu, to the Central Government and State Government, though it may be the same representation, will have to be independently considered. In Satpal v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 2230: 1981 Crl.L.J. 1867, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “It cannot be said that the power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under Sch.II is not attracted until the State Govt. has considered the representation made by the detenu and rejected it and until the Advisory Board has submitted its report to the State Government. Under the Act, a detenu has the right to simultaneously make a representation to the detaining authority which has to be considered by the Advisory Board, as also the right to apply to the Central Government for revocation of the detention order under Sec.11. The constitutional imperatives of Art.22(5) enjoin that were the detenu makes simultaneously a representation to the detaining authority as well as an application for revocation under Sec.11, they must both be dealt with by the appropriate governments at the same time, and there is no question of any conflict of jurisdiction.” . 10. Let us now turn to certain dates in the instant habeas corpus petition. Central Govt has asked for parawar remarks from the State Government, by letter dated l.2.1993,despatched by speed post. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, after perusing the representation file, would submit that the letter despatched by speed post by the Central Government on 2. 1993 was received by the State Government only on 12. 1993. It is rather surprising that speed post transit had taken about 16 days. It would have been better if the State Government had retained on its file the speed post envelope so that it will be available for court’s scrutiny. 1993 was received by the State Government only on 12. 1993. It is rather surprising that speed post transit had taken about 16 days. It would have been better if the State Government had retained on its file the speed post envelope so that it will be available for court’s scrutiny. However, this delay need not have to detain us in the instant case. From 12. 1993 till 26 2.1993, when the State Government forwarded parawar remarks, the whole matter was kept in cold storage. State Government has no explana-tion to offer for this delay of nine days. Further Mr.L.Subramaniam was fair enough to bring to our notice, that the parawar remarks received by the State Government on 2. 1993, while disposing of the representation of detenu, was the same that was forwarded to the Central Government on 26 2.1993, by the State Government. State Government did not independently call for fresh parawar remarks. This factor further shows, that there was practically no reason, whatever, for the State Government to have exhibited lethargy and supine indifference, for such a long period, when the detenu was seeking to exercise her constitutional rights. We hold in favour of the detenu on this ground as well. 11. The impugned order of detention shall stand set aside. The petitioner is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her detention is otherwise required. This H.C.P. is allowed.