Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. The order of detention on the allegation that the detenu is a `boot-legger is in question. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. The first contention raised by him is that the representation made on behalf of the detenu has not been disposed of expeditiously. We have gone through the materials on record. We find that the representation dated 10. 2006 has been disposed of on 11. 2006. The intervening period has been properly explained. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted. The second contention of the petitioner is to the effect that at the time of disposal of the representation, sufficient attention has not been bestowed to the representation of the petitioner. It is stated that in the representation it has been specifically indicated that there was a discrepancy in the grounds of detention and the first information report. In the grounds of detention it has been indicated as the sample of 500 ml was taken in three white coloured bottles with the capacity of 650 ml each. Admittedly in the grounds of detention it was indicated as if 500 ml sample had been taken in a bottle of 750 ml. According to the petitioner, it amounts to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. It is now stated in the counter affidavit that it was a typographical mistake in the grounds of detention in English and only 500 ml sample has been taken in a bottle of 750 ml capacity. We find that in the representation made by the petitioner it had been specifically mentioned. However, in the rejection order this aspect has been completely ignored. The subsequent clarification in the counter cannot cure the defect. 4. Law is well settled when once a representation is made on behalf of the detenu, such representation should be considered with all seriousness and proper application of mind. Since in the present case sufficient ground has been made in the representation indicating the discrepancy, it was the duty of the authority deciding the representation at that stage to apply his mind. In such view of the matter since the representation has not been disposed of by proper application of mind, we are constrained to quash the order of detention. 5. In such view of the matter since the representation has not been disposed of by proper application of mind, we are constrained to quash the order of detention. 5. The Habeas Corpus Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.