Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. Petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu by name Kumar @ Funk Kumar, challenges the detention order dated 11.03.2005, detaining her son as a goonda under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, though raised several points challenging the order of detention, at the foremost projected that inasmuch as the detaining authority has not considered pre-detention representation of the petitioner (mother of the detenu) dated 04.03.2005 and not reflected in the detention order with reference to the same, the ultimate detention order is liable to be quashed. 3. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the earlier decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of T.M.Syed Ali and another ..vs.. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 1999 (II) CTC 490 and Kali ..vs.. State rep.by Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, etc.& another reported in 2002-I- L.W.(Crl.) 401. 4. While elaborating the above contentions, the learned counsel has brought to our notice the representation of the petitioner dated 04.03.2005 addressed to the detaining authority, which finds place at page 1 of the typed set of papers. Page 2 of the typed set shows that the said representation was acknowledged by the detaining authority-Commissioner of Police, Chennai-8 on 06.03.2005. In the reply dated 23.03.2005, the detaining authority in the penultimade paragraph though referred to the written representation of the petitioner dated 04.03.2005, after stating that the said representation relates to seeking protection to her life and the same had been forwarded to the authority concerned concluded that there is no need to consider the same by the detaining authority or the Government. The said reply finds place at pages 3 and 4 of the typed set. 5. In the light of the submissions made, we have carefully perused the representation of the petitioner dated 04.03.2005. The said reply finds place at pages 3 and 4 of the typed set. 5. In the light of the submissions made, we have carefully perused the representation of the petitioner dated 04.03.2005. On going through the same and the relevant paragraphs in the grounds of detention, we are of the view that the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is well founded. The said representation cannot be construed that the petitioner had asked protection from the police authorities. On the other hand, she referred to certain material facts, namely, taking away her son, the detenu; while he was returning from a temple at Venkat Narayana Road he was beaten up by the police; forced to sign in a blank paper and also foisting certain cases against him. 6. As mentioned earlier, the said representation was made prior to passing of the impugned detention order. It is not the case of the detaining authority that they have not received the same from the petitioner, the mother of the detenu. Inasmuch as the said representation had been received by the detaining authority, it is but proper for the authority to consider and refer the same in the order of detention. In 1999 (II) CTC 490 (cited supra), after following the dictum laid in HCP No.656 of 1998 dated 17.09.1998 and after finding that the representation though made anterior in point of time to the passing of the order of detention, the same is a relevant material piece of evidence to be sent to the Government and it is for the Government to take a decision under section 3(4) of the Act whether to confirm or not to confirm the order of detention, quashed the detention order and set aside the same. In the subsequent decision, namely, 2002(1) L.W.(Crl.) 401 (cited supra), this Court has taken the same view. 7. In the light of factual details as mentioned above and in view of the decisions referred to above, we are of the view that the detaining authority failed to consider the pre-detention representation of the petitioner dated 04.03.2005 and the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground. 8. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of detention is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. 8. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of detention is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.