Judgment :- (Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 25.08.2006 in C.No.6/PBMMSEC.Act/IS/2006 against the petitioner's son Saravanan, aged about 26 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.) P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.P. Kumaresan, learned Assistant Central Government Standing Counsel for the third respondent. 2. The order of preventive detention under Section 3(2)(b) read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, is in question. The counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions. However, it is not necessary to deal with such contentions as in our opinion the contention relating to the non disposal of representation made before the Central Government is acceptable. It has been specifically stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit to the following effect: "The authorities from State and Central Governments were failed to consider the representations sent on behalf of the detenu dated 04.09.2006 and if they considered the same they have failed to serve the result of the said representations." 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has produced before us materials to indicate that the representation made before the State Government has been disposed of. However, no material has been produced before us either by respondents 1 and 2 or by the third respondent to indicate about the fate of the representation made on behalf of the detenu before the Central Government. 4. In view of the provisions contained in the Act, it is obvious that the order of preventive detention passed by the State Government can be revoked by the Central Government and the representation can also be made to the Central Government. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the Central Government is required to dispose of the representation of the detenu as expeditiously as possible without any delay. In the present case, there is no material available on record to show that such representation has been considered. 5. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the Central Government is required to dispose of the representation of the detenu as expeditiously as possible without any delay. In the present case, there is no material available on record to show that such representation has been considered. 5. In such view of the matter, the detention order is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detenu viz., Saravanan shall be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.