JUDGMENT - G.D. KAMAT, J.:---A writ of Habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ is sought to get the order of detention dated 4th of January, 1994 made under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short "COFEPOSA") made by respondent No. 2, Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and pursuant to which, the petitioner has been taken under detention quashed and set aside. 2. The story of the matter is that the order of dention dated 4th January, 1994 was served on Shailesh Rikabchand Bhandari, hereinafter called as "the detenu" on 4th of March, 1994. Grounds of detention were pari pasu served on the detenu and he was taken in dentention on the same date. The petitioner made a representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India addressed to respondent No.2-detaining authority to revoke the order of detention. The pertitioner was informed sometime by the end of April 1994 that his representation against the order of detention has been rejected on 21st of April, 1994 by the Central Government. 3. Large number of grounds have been raised in this petition to challenge the order of detention but finally Mr. M.G. Karmali, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has restricted the case of the detenu only on one ground that though the representation dated 1st of April, 1994 was adressed to the 2nd respondent,the authority who made the the detention order, the detenu was misled that the representation was rejected by the Central Government and in that the petitioner lost his valuable right of making representation to the Central Government. To buttress this ground, Mr. Karmali relies upon a decision in the case of (Jawhar Roopchand Asar v. Union of India other)1, in Criminal Writ Petition No.686 of 1994, an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 17th of October, 1994. 4. There is no dispute that the facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts case of Jawhar Roopchand Asar (supra). In that case also as in the present case, a representation was addressed to the detaining authority and the detaining authority itself disposed of the representation,but however, while communicating the rejection thereof, mentioned that it is the Central Government which has rejected the representation. In that case also as in the present case, a representation was addressed to the detaining authority and the detaining authority itself disposed of the representation,but however, while communicating the rejection thereof, mentioned that it is the Central Government which has rejected the representation. The Division Bench held that the mention made that the representation was rejected by the Central Government misled the detenu and in that, he believed that he could no more file a representation to the Central Government against his detention and that way, prejudice was caused to the detenu. This being the story, in our view, there is merit in the present petition. The representation of the detenu dated 1st of April, 1994 was addressed to respondent No. 2 who made the order of detention dated 4th of January, 1994. He himself rejected the representation which is needless to emphasize is a valuable constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, but however, while communicating the same to the detenu, clearly held out that it is the Central Government which has rejected the same. Needless to say, therefore, that the detenu was prejudiced and he believed that he could no longer file a representation to the the Central Government. It is not necessary to reiterate that the detenu has right which has been recognised by the Apex Court that he can make a representation against his detention to the detaining authority as well as to the Central Government and it is incumbent upon both the detaining authority as well as the Central Government to independently decide the representation made by the detenu. In this view of the matter, we are left with no alternative but to quash and set aside the detention order dated 4th of January, 1994 and set the detenu at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Rule accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. Rule made absolute. *****