Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. One Sekar (petitioner) is the detenu. He, it is said, is a bootlegger. A part from the ground case, the occurrence relating to which is said to have happened on 22. 1996, he had Some to adverse notice in seven other cases. .2. The District Magistrate and Collector, North Arcot Ambedkar District, Vellore (first respondent) clamped upon the detenu the impugned order of detention in his proceedings C3.D.O. No.24 of 1996, dated 13. 1996, under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), with a view to preventing him from indulging in an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. 3. Mr.R.Sundaramurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would press into service the lone and sole ground, namely, that the representation dated 14. 1996 addressed to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu and sent by way of registered post with acknowledgment due on 24. 1996 had not been duly considered and disposed of without avoidable and unreasonable delay and on this short ground alone, he would say, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Syed Fasuiddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents would, however, repeal such a submission and produce the relevant file for perusal and consideration of this Court. 5. Mr. Syed Fasuiddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would represent that the representation dated 14. 1996 said to have been addressed to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu and sent by way of registered post with acknowledgment due on 24. 1996 had not at all been received by the second respondent- Government and therefore, the question of consideration of such a non-existing representation will never arise for consideration. .6. Mr.R. Sundaramurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would in proof of such a representation having been sent to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu by way of registered post with acknowledgment due on 24. 1996, produced the relevant materials, in the shape of a copy of such a representation, registered postal receipt and also the postal acknowledgment. .6. Mr.R. Sundaramurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would in proof of such a representation having been sent to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu by way of registered post with acknowledgment due on 24. 1996, produced the relevant materials, in the shape of a copy of such a representation, registered postal receipt and also the postal acknowledgment. We have perused all these materials and we are satisfied that for and on behalf of the petitioner-detenu, one S.Diwakar, learned counsel sent a representation to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu dated 14. 1996 by registered post on 24. 1996. The representation so sent had been received by the Secretariat attached to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu on 30.4.1996, as evidenced by the seal affixed to the postal acknowledgment. Once the representation had been received by the Secretariat attached to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, there is a duty cast upon the said Secretariat to forward the representation so received to the State Government for consideration and disposal of the said representation without any delay. 7. From a perusal of the file produced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are unable to perceive any sort of a representation so that having been received by the second respondent- Government. We directed the said learned Additional Public Prosecutor to verify from the Secretariat attached to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu as to whether the representation so received by the Secretariat attached to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu had been forwarded to the second respondent- Government. After verification, the said learned Additional Public Prosecutor represented that the said representation had been received by the Secretariat attached to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu and the representation so received was stated to have been forwarded to Home Department of the second respondent- Government on 7. 1996, as is getting reflected Endorsement No.4477/U3/96. He would, however, plead that though the representation had been forwarded through post to the Home Department from the Secretariat attached to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, yet such a representation had neither been received by the Home Department, nor the Prohibition and Excise Department of the second respondent- Government. However, the fact remains that due representation had been made for and on behalf of the detenu to the concerned authorities. However, the fact remains that due representation had been made for and on behalf of the detenu to the concerned authorities. The fact that the representation sent through post by the Secretariat attached to His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu was not received is not at all a factor, which shall be taken into consideration for exonerating the second respondent- Government for non-consideration and disposal of such a representation. The fact remains that the representation so sent not at all received due consideration and disposal till this day by the second respondent-Government. In such state of affairs, it goes without saying that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 8. In fine, the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is set aside and the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless and until he is required to be detained in connection with any other case or cause. Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the corpus or body of the petitioner’s Minor’s son Mustafa, aged 4 years now in the custody of the third respondent before this Court and hand over the minor son to the petitioner who is the mother and the natural guardian. Habibullah Badsha, Senior Counsel for M.A.Kalam, for Petitioner. One Dr.Nasheeda J. Bhavnagarwala (Petitioner) resorted to the present action, praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, directing the respondents to produce the corpus or body of her minor son Mustafs, aged 4 years now in the custody of the third respondent before this Court and hand over him her, claiming to be the mother and natural guardian. 2. The first respondent is the Commissioner of Police, Madras-8, while the second respondent is the Inspector of Police, F-2 Egmore Police Station, Madras. The third respondent one Mr.Asif T. Khan Bhai, a resident of Bhav Nagar, Gujarat is none-else than the husband of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent, it is said, was celebrated on 1st March, 1989 and thereafter, the spouses lived in Bhav Nagar, 199, Vijayaraj Nagar, ‘Ravindru’, Gujarat. The third respondent one Mr.Asif T. Khan Bhai, a resident of Bhav Nagar, Gujarat is none-else than the husband of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the third respondent, it is said, was celebrated on 1st March, 1989 and thereafter, the spouses lived in Bhav Nagar, 199, Vijayaraj Nagar, ‘Ravindru’, Gujarat. The petitioner wife would claim constant ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the third respondent, her husband and consequently, she was forced to leave him in March, 1994 along with her minor son Mustafa, who was then 11/ 2 years old and started staying with her parents at 17, Sulaiman Zakaria Avenue, Egmore, Madras-8. The petitioner pursued her higher studies in the sense of her joining M.D. course in Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Porur. She would claim that there was no contact between her and her husband, the third respondent for the last 2 1/2 years. Her son Mustafa, she would claim had been studying in L.K.G. in Don Bosco School, Egmore Madras. 3. While so, on 111. 1996, her father left for Mecca for pilgrimage. The third respondent, her husband, it is said, came on 111. 1996 and started quarrelling.