Judgment :- P. SATHASIVAM, J. The petitioners in HCP.89 and 90 of 2005 are wife and mother of the detenus by name Abdul Kader and Bilal respectively, challenge the detention orders both dated 07.12.2004, passed against them under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65 of 1980), in these petitions. 2. Since the grounds of detention and points raised before this Court in both the petitions are one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. 3. For convenience, we shall refer the factual details found in HCP.89 of 2005. (a) On 26.10.2004, at about 09.00 a.m. the Head Constable 1834 Gopalakrishnan of Nellikuppam Police Station, on intimation, went to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore and examined one of the injured persons, namely, Arokiyaraj, S/o. Samikannu, who gave a statement, stating that his friend one Selvakumar, who left for Maldives, had asked the Complainant Arokiyaraj to take care of his 14 year old daughter Baziria Begam, as one Osaimani (accused) frequently chased her and pursued for marriage with him, and also requested him to give proper protection to his family members, from the wrath of the accused persons, who are also having allegiance to an unlawful organisation called "Vidial Velli". (b) The statement also proceeds that on 26.10.2004, at about 4.30 a.m. when the complainant was informed by the neighbour of said Selvakumar that ten persons belonging to the said unlawful organisation had surrounded the house of Baziria Begam, and forced her to come out, and attempted to kidnap her, the complainant along with his friend Suresh Babu S/o. Subramaniyan, went to the house of said Baziria Begam, where he found that all the accused persons including Bilal and Abdulkadar belonging to "Vidial Velli" organisation armed with knife, iron pipe, sticks and Ninja weapon, formed into an unlawful assembly with a common object of kidnapping Baziria Begum, who is a minor, and made a wordy quarrel with one Rashiya Begum, mother of Baziria Begam and forced her to send her daughter along with them. ( c ) The complaint further proceeds that the complainant and his friend intervened and tried to persuade them, and they were joined by another friend, namely, Abdul Lathif, S/o. Abdul Jabbar, but the accused Thambiraja abused them in filthy language and induced others to do away with them, and beat Suresh Babu with iron pipe on his back and head and caused bleeding injuries. It is also stated that the accused Nazar and Bilal with an intention to cause death, attacked the complainant on his head with knife and the accused Abdulgani @ Gani stabbed him with knife on his back several times. It is further stated that the accused Haja Mohideen with the aid of knife, cut the witness Abdul Latif on his head, and all the witnesses including the complainant hurriedly went inside the house of said Abdul Latif and took asylum and all the accused chased them coming inside the house and dragged them all out and again started attacking them. (d) The complainant has also stated that the accused Allaudin, with the help of iron pipe beat several times on his head and there by caused bleeding injuries and other accused beat the complainant party with sticks all over the body and then, all the accused threatened others by showing their lethal weapons aloft, and caused criminal intimidation by stating that they would meet the same fate as suffered by the injured witnesses. It is also stated that the said occurrence was witnessed by other persons, namely Rathinavel, Mani, Kandavel, Mahesh, Jabbar and Babu and then, the injured complainant and the witnesses were brought to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore for necessary treatment. On the said complaint, given by Arokiyaraj, a case was registered in Cr.No.1434/04 of Nellikuppam Police Station u/s. 147, 148, 294, 323, 324, 427, 506 (II) and 307 IPC. The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam had taken up investigation and he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar and examined the material witnesses such as Sakthivel, S.N. Mohammed Ameed, Raja S/o. Abdullah, Mubarak, Abusali, Veeran, Saleem, Raja S/o. Arumugam, Purusothaman and Karunakaran and recorded their statement. 4. The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam had taken up investigation and he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar and examined the material witnesses such as Sakthivel, S.N. Mohammed Ameed, Raja S/o. Abdullah, Mubarak, Abusali, Veeran, Saleem, Raja S/o. Arumugam, Purusothaman and Karunakaran and recorded their statement. 4. After investigation and in view of the confession statement of the accused, a special report was sent to the concerned Court to alter the existing provisions of law into Sections 147, 148, 294, 323, 324, 427, 506 (II) and 307, 124 (A), 153 A (1)(a), 505(1)(2) IPC r/w Sections 3 and 10 of Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, 1967 and 25 (1-B) (f) and 27 (1) of Arms Act, 1959. 5. The grounds of detention further show that both the detenus had conducted themselves as ardent activists of the out-lawed organisation, "Vidial Velli" as well as "Manitha Needhi Pasari," which had their root at Nellikuppam and grew potentially by giving secret training to innocent people belonging to Dalit community and thereby projected themselves as Organisation endangering public peace and causing panic and terror in the minds of general public other than Muslims living in that locality. These unlawful organisations owing diligence to the Muslim community prevailed in Nellikuppam, were set up in the foot steps of the banned out fits, viz., Al-Umma and SIMI, which performed all illegal and seditious activities to undermine the principle of Secularism. 6. With the above materials, the Detaining Authority, after finding that both the detenus had been remanded to judicial custody, their bail applications were pending in this High Court, there is imminent possibility of them coming out on bail, and in such case, they will indulge in such further activities in future as well, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, public peace and security of nation, detained them in lawful custody under the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980. 7. Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, after taking us through grounds of detention and all other connected materials has raised the following contentions. "1. Representation made prior to the detention order was not considered by the detaining authority, which vitiates the impugned detention order; 2. Though a representation was made to Ministry of Home Affairs, the same was not considered; and 3. "1. Representation made prior to the detention order was not considered by the detaining authority, which vitiates the impugned detention order; 2. Though a representation was made to Ministry of Home Affairs, the same was not considered; and 3. The grounds of detention do not show any material to detain both the detenus under National Security Act." Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate (Crl.) met all the points by placing relevant records. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused all the connected materials. 9. For convenience, let us decide HCP.89 of 2005 first. Coming to the first contention, it is the claim of the petitioner that pre-detention representation was sent to the District Magistrate and District Collector, Cuddalore District / detaining authority and other authorities on 23.11.2004. It is also the claim of the petitioner that the same was acknowledged by the second respondent and no order passed against the same. It is also the claim of the petitioner that the same has not been referred to in the Grounds of Detention, hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, particularly in para 9 it has been specifically stated that no pre-detention representation was received by the authority and denied the claim of the petitioner. In the light of the specific denial, it is for the petitioner to substantiate his claim that a pre-detention representation was made to the second respondent. 10. Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has produced a letter from the Deputy Manager (CS), Department of Posts dated 14.03.2005, to show that a letter / article to the District Collector, Cuddalore was delivered to the addressee on 24.11.2004. He also produced a xerox copy of the letter dated 11.03.2005, sent by the petitioner to the Postal Authority, Greams Road, Chennai 6, to show that she had sent a representation to the second respondent. However, copy of the said representation said to have been made to the District Collector, Cuddalore has not been placed before us. Admittedly, the representation was not sent in a cover with acknowledgment due. However, copy of the said representation said to have been made to the District Collector, Cuddalore has not been placed before us. Admittedly, the representation was not sent in a cover with acknowledgment due. In the light of the assertion and the materials placed on the side of the petitioner, on direction by us, learned Government Advocate has produced xerox copy of the relevant entries made in the Tapal Book being maintained in the Office of the District Collector, Cuddalore for the period, between 22.11.2004 and 25.11.2004. We verified those entries and we are satisfied that there is no entry evidencing the receipt of representation from the petitioner, viz., A.K. Maimoona. In such a circumstance, in the absence of evidence, viz., receipt of representation, we do not find any valid reason to reject the material produced from the Office of the Collector to show that they had not received any such representation from the petitioner on 24.11.2004, as stated in the letter of the Postal Department. Accordingly, we hold that there is no valid proof to show that the petitioner had made a representation on 23.11.2004. In such a circumstance, though Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel relied on several decisions in support of his contention that it is not proper for the detaining authority not to consider the pre-detention representation and not to refer the same in the grounds of detention. In the light of our above conclusion, it is unnecessary to refer the same. 11. Coming to the second contention relating to representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, it is the claim of the petitioner that she made a representation to Ministry of Home Affairs, Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi on 10.01.2005. The learned senior counsel has produced copy of the said representation and receipt issued by the Postal Department to show that a letter was booked to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and also xerox copy of the letter from the Deputy Manager (CS), Department of Posts. Here again, the third respondent – Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is specifically stated that no representation from or on behalf of the detenu has been received by the concerned Section of Ministry of Home Affairs till date (28.02.2005). Here again, the third respondent – Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is specifically stated that no representation from or on behalf of the detenu has been received by the concerned Section of Ministry of Home Affairs till date (28.02.2005). In the light of the specific assertion by the third respondent and in the absence of proof in the form of acknowledgment card from the addressee, we are unable to accept the claim of the petitioner and hold that there is no acceptable material to show that a representation was sent to Ministry of Home Affairs. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 12. Coming to the last contention, viz., that there no material for detaining both the detenus under National Security Act, the learned Government Advocate, took us through the affidavit of the sponsoring authority as well as the confession statement of the detenus and other accused. All those documents are available in the book-let supplied to the detenus. A perusal of the confession statements of the detenu Abdul Kader and Bilal and other accused clearly supports the apprehension and the averments made in the grounds of detention evidencing that unless the detenus are detained under the National Security Act, nothing can prevent them from indulging in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, public peace and security of nation. On perusal of those materials, we are satisfied that the detaining authority, after considering the complaints, statement of various persons, confession statements of the accused and the affidavit of the sponsoring authority as well as taking note of maintenance of public order, public peace and the security of the nation, passed the impugned orders of detention. We are satisfied that there were sufficient materials before the Detaining Authority for passing the orders of detention under National Security Act. 13. In respect of HCP.No.90 of 2005, though no proof was placed before this Court to show that there was pre-detention representation to the detaining authority and representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs, learned senior counsel for the petitioners would submit that if this Court accepts the claim of the petitioner in HCP.89 of 2005, the same will apply to the petitioner in HCP.90 of 2005. In view of our conclusion in HCP.89 of 2005, the claim relating to HCP.90 of 2005, is liable to be rejected. In view of our conclusion in HCP.89 of 2005, the claim relating to HCP.90 of 2005, is liable to be rejected. 14. We are also satisfied that the detaining authority was in possession of sufficient details relating to the detenus and others, who indulged in seditious activities against the nation by running training camps to Muslims of the area, indulging in unlawful activities. In the light of our discussion, we do not find any ground for interference. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed.