Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention made by the second respondent in Crl.M.P.No.84 of 2004, dated 11.12.2004, quash the same and consequently to set the detenu Vellaichamy at liberty.) P.D. Dinakaran, J. The challenge in this habeas corpus petition is to the order of detention, dated 11.12.2004, passed by the second respondent against one Vellaichamy (hereinafter referred as "the detenu"), branding him as a "Bootlegger" and directing preventive detention under Section 3(1) 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) read with the orders issued by the Government in G.O.(D)No.275, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, dated 18th October 2004 under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a pre-detention representation, dated 23.11.2004, was sent by the petitioner to the detaining authority making several allegations against the sponsoring authority, but the same was not considered by the detaining authority and if at all the same has been considered and disposed of, it might have been mentioned in the grounds of detention, but there is no mention about the same and, therefore, on this ground, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 3. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above aspect and also perused the material available on record. 4. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the petitioner had made a pre-detention representation on 23.11.2004, the same was not considered and disposed of by the detaining authority before passing the detention order. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the pre-detention representation, dated 24.11.2004, was, in fact, duly considered, but rejected before passing the detention order. Concededly, even assuming that it was considered and rejected, the same is not available either in the book-let supplied to the detenu nor a mention is made about this in the grounds of detention and, in our considered view, this vitiates the impugned order of detention. Concededly, even assuming that it was considered and rejected, the same is not available either in the book-let supplied to the detenu nor a mention is made about this in the grounds of detention and, in our considered view, this vitiates the impugned order of detention. This view stands supported by an earlier decision of the Apex Court in District Magistrate V. R. Kumaravel, reported in 1994 SCC (Crl.) 229, a Division Bench decision of this Court in Syed Ali, T.M. V. State Of Tamil Nadu, reported in 1999(2) CTC 490 , which have been followed in the decision rendered in HCP No.1965 of 2000, decided on 23.01.2001, in which one of us is a party. 5. For the said reason, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention, dated 11.12.2004, in Crl.M.P.No.84/2004, passed by the second respondent, is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with in any other case.