Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name Rajeswari, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 07.11.2005, detaining her son Sunil, as “Goonda” under Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short “Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982”). 2. Heard both sides. 3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.205, which was addressed to the District Collector, Tiruvallore District/Detaining authority, contended that though it was received on the same day, the same was neither considered by him, nor forwarded to the Government for proper action. According to the learned counsel, inasmuch as in the said representation after referring the detention order dated 07.11.2005, the mother of the detenu has made several grievances, praying for the release of her son at the earliest point of time, the Detaining authority ought to have considered and disposed of the same or forwarded it to the Government for taking proper action. 4. As against the said contention, learned Government advocate contended that the detention order was passed on 07.11.2005 and the same was approved by the Government on 18.11.2005, and the representation is said to have been made only on 21.11.2005, that too on the “Public Grievance Day” in the midst of several other persons. In other words, according to him, the said representation dated 21.11.2005 cannot be treated as proper representation for consideration either by the Detaining authority or by the Government. 5. We verified the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2005, who is none else than the mother of the detenu. The enclosure issued by the Office of the District Collector, Tiruvallore District dated 21.11.2005 shows the name and address of the person who handed over the representation, the request sought for, the cut off date and the person to whom the reply has to be made. The above said enclosure dated 21.11.2005 makes it clear that the said representation was handed over during the “Public Grievance Day” to the District Collector, Tiruvellore District. It is not in dispute that the District Collector is the competent authority, who passed the detention order on 07.11.2005. The above said enclosure dated 21.11.2005 makes it clear that the said representation was handed over during the “Public Grievance Day” to the District Collector, Tiruvellore District. It is not in dispute that the District Collector is the competent authority, who passed the detention order on 07.11.2005. It is true that the Government approved the detention order on 18.11.2005. In such circumstances, having received the representation on 21.11.2005 by the District Collector, it is but proper on his part to forward the same to the Government, since after approval of the detention order by the Government, he has no power to pass an order on the representation. In this regard it is useful to refer the contents of the representation of the petitioner dated 21.11.2005. Among several grievances expressed in page 2 of the said representation, the petitioner has highlighted, 6. It is clear that the mother of the detenu highlighted that her son has not involved in any case and out of vengeance, false cases have been foisted against him by the police. We are not saying that there is truth in the said allegation, however, in view of assertion in the representation addressed to the Detaining authority, as said earlier, it is but proper on his part to forward it to the Government for consideration. Inasmuch as the District Collector / District Magistrate, failed to forward the same to the Government, we hold that the detenu is prejudiced by the act of the Detaining authority in not considering the representation of his mother. Though learned Government advocate contended that the said representation was handed over by the mother of the detenu, among several other persons, in view of the fact that the same has been received by the person on behalf of the District Collector and in view of the specific reference made therein relating to detention order, as said earlier, it is the duty of the District Collector to forward it to the Government for necessary action. 7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of A. Vellanai vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli (1984 Crl.L.J. 68). 7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of A. Vellanai vs. Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli (1984 Crl.L.J. 68). In the above cited decision, while relying upon the judgment reported in Puranlal Lathanlal vs. Union of India (1958 Crl.L.J.283), the Division Bench, held that the detaining authority is obliged to forward all the subsequent materials having a bearing on the matter to the Government and to the Board and that otherwise the action of the detaining authority in withholding of subsequent information tending to falsify or belie the earlier materials on which the detention order was passed, would stand unchallenged and there is a danger of withholding all materials on the matter in issue in order to sustain the order of detention, which would definitely lead to a situation where the personal right and liberty of a person would be at stake at the hands of the Executive and the safeguard provided by the Constitution for the protection thereof would be impaired. On this ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed; accordingly, it is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.