Judgment : K. Mohan Ram, J. 1. Heard Mr. O.S. Thilakpasumbadiyar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. The detenu was detained by an order dated 20.10.2006 passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 on the allegation that he is a bootlegger. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the brother of the detenu challenging the order of detention. .3. Though several contentions were put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the following contentions merit acceptance we are not adverting to the rest of the contentions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the counsel for the detenu sent a telegram at 12.40 pm on 19. 2006, to the second respondent/Detaining Authority and a copy of the same was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy and Inspector of Police, Ariyamangalam, Trichy, informing them that “the Inspector of Police, Ariyamangalam Police Station took Basheer the detenue and one Shahul Hameed into illegal custody on 19. 2006 at 7.00 am and subjected them to torture, injuries are found in their person, efforts are on to foist false cases”, but the same has not been considered by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention. The said contention has been put forth in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations made in the telegram were also made in the representation dated 11. 2006, but without considering the same the rejection order dated 20.11.2006 has been passed by the first respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pre-detention telegram alleges attempt on the part of the Sponsoring Authority to foist false cases against the detenue but the same has neither been referred to nor considered by the Detaining Authority before passing the order of detention. The learned counsel further submitted that a copy of the telegram was also sent to the Sponsoring Authority and as such the Sponsoring Authority should have placed the same before the Detaining Authority along with the other materials. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, non consideration of the said telegram vitiates the order of detention as it amounts to non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, non consideration of the said telegram vitiates the order of detention as it amounts to non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 7. Per contra , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that in respect of the contention put forth in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit the same has been dealt with in paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that a telegram had been sent on 19. 2006, whereas the order of detention was passed only on 20.10.2006 and as such it would not have been possible for the Detaining Authority to consider the telegram. .8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions put forth by the learned counsel on either side. In the counter affidavit, while dealing with the contentions put forth by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, in paragraph 4 it is stated as follows: .“4 . I deny the averment made in para-3 of the affidavit that the pre-detention representation telegram dated 19. 2006, sent on behalf of the detenu was not considered. On 19. 2006, the detenu was involved in a extortion case and on the complaint of Thavasupal, a case in Ponmalai PS Cr. No.316/2006 u/S. 387, 506(II), IPC was registered and the police were looking out for the accused Basheer. On knowing this, a telegram was sent on 19. 2006, not as alleged on 19. 2006, on behalf of the accused Basheer, stating that he was taken into illegal custody by Ariyamangalam Police .........Hence at the time of receipt of the telegram by Ariyamangalam Police he was not arrested by them as it was filed. Moreover as there was no mention about his detention under Goondas Act in the telegram it was not included in the detention documents”. 9. When the counsel for the detenue had sent the telegram at 12.40 pm on 19. 2006 to the Detaining Authority and a copy of the same was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy and to the Inspector of Police, Ariyamangalam, Trichy, alleging that the detenue was taken into illegal custody on 19. 2006 at 7.00 am and subjected to torture, etc. 2006 to the Detaining Authority and a copy of the same was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy and to the Inspector of Police, Ariyamangalam, Trichy, alleging that the detenue was taken into illegal custody on 19. 2006 at 7.00 am and subjected to torture, etc. and efforts are on to foist false cases, it is the bounden duty of the Sponsoring Authority to have placed such a telegram before the Detaining Authority along with the other materials, but admittedly the said telegram has not been placed before the Detaining Authority. .10. The contention of the learned Additional Public Prosector is that since the telegram had been sent on 19. 2006 whereas the order of detention was passed only on 20.10.2006, it would not have been possible for the Detaining Authority to consider the telegram. The only explanation given for not placing the telegram before the Detaining Authority is that since there was no mention about the detention of the detenu under Goondas Act in the telegram, it was not included in the detention documents. It is pertinent to point out that a copy of the telegram dated 19. 2006 was also addressed to the Detaining Authority and copies of the same were marked to the Sponsoring Authority and as such the same should have been placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority along with the other materials, as serious allegations have been made in the telegram. 11. When it has been specifically alleged in the telegram that efforts are on to foist false cases, it is incumbent on the part of the Sponsoring Authority to place the same before the Detaining Authority and it is equally the bounden duty of the Detaining Authority to consider the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that infact in Crime No.316 of 2006, which was registered on 19. 2006 against the detenu, charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance as C.C. No.701 of 2006 and the same also ended in acquittal as none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the fact that none of the witnesses supported the prosecution case will itself show that it was a false case foisted against the detenue and the same lends credence to the allegations made in the telegram. 12. According to the learned counsel, the fact that none of the witnesses supported the prosecution case will itself show that it was a false case foisted against the detenue and the same lends credence to the allegations made in the telegram. 12. Therefore, in our considered view, the said telegram is a vital document, which ought to have been placed before the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority. If the same had been placed before the Detaining Authority, we cannot say with certainty as to how the Detaining Authority would have appreciated the same and to what conclusion he would have come regarding the imminent necessity to detain the detenue under the Goondas Act. 13. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the allegations contained in the telegram have been reiterated in the representation dated 11. 2006 sent on behalf of the detenu by his counsel and infact the telegram itself has been referred to. But while rejecting the said representation the said allegations have not been specifically referred to and considered except stating that such allegation is not acceptable. When a serious allegation has been made by the detenu, it is the bounden duty of the second respondent to consider the same with proper application of mind but the same has not been done in this case. The consideration of the representation is not an empty formality but it should have been considered with all seriousness and when that has not been done so, it affects the valuable right of the detenu and on that ground also, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 14. For the above said reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.