Judgment : Per Ms. R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition is to the detention order dated 29.1.2007, whereby the petitioner was detrained under COFEPOSA. 2. Facts which led to the passing of detention order against the detinue are as follows: On 21.12.2006, the detinue on arrival from Singapore was intercepted by Customs Officer. On suspicion, when he was interrogated, the detinue declared the value of the goods brought by him as Rs.25,000/-. The detinue has declared the value of the goods brought by him as Rs.25,000/-. The detinue has identified his own hand baggage and checked-in-baggage and checked in baggage and examination of the same led to recovery of cameras, video Caste and Data Cartridge in number of buses. Based on the information available in the internet, the value of the goods was arrived at Rs.8,60,327/- Alleging that the detenu had mis-declared the value of the goods brought by him, he was arrested. The detenu was also involved in previous offence in O.S. No. 221/2006. On being satisfied that the detenu has been indulging in prejudicial activities of smuggling electronic gods, detention order was clamped on the detenu. 3. In the HCP and In the additional grounds permitted, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: The detenu was arrested on 21.12.2006 and the detention order was passed on 29.1.2007 and till then no Bail Application was filed by the detenu. While so, there was no imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail; The Detaining Authority has placed reliance upon number of documents for arriving at value of the goods and such documents were not supplied to the detenu; Non-consideration of pre-detention representation sent by the Petitioners father on 6.1.2007. 4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the market value of the goods has been arrived at only on the basis of the information available in the internet and disputing the value of the goods brought by the detenu is clearly an afterthought. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the representation dated 6.1.2007 alleged to have been sent by the detenus father was not received by the Detaining Authority. The learned Addl. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the representation dated 6.1.2007 alleged to have been sent by the detenus father was not received by the Detaining Authority. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submitted that the representation dated 6.1.2007 sent to the Law Minister cannot be construed as pre-detention representation sent to the competent authority and non-consideration of the same would not in any way render the detention order illegal. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner at the foremost raised the point relating to non-consideration of pre-detention representation dated 6.1.2007 net to the Law Minister by the father of the detenu. The detenu had sent the representation to the Advisory Board on 4.4.2007. In the said representation detenu has alleged that “his father had sent representation on 6.1.2007 to the Law Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu to stop issue of detention order and the representation was not considered till date”. It is reply to the said representation the Government has stated that the said representation dated 06.01.2007 was not received by the Law Minister as is seen from the following. 6. To substitute the contention of sending pre-detention representation dated 6.1.2007 by father of the detenu, copy of the letter sent by speed post along with the receipt and acknowledgment was produced. By perusal of the same, it is seen that the representation dated 6.1.2007 was sent by speed post in speed post number ET 4045825371N on 6.01.2007 to the Law Minister Office of Law Minister has received the said letter on 8.1.2007, as is seen from Sl. No. 126 of the acknowledgments receipt, affixing seal dated 8.1.2007 for having received the representation. 7. The postal receipt and acknowledgments makes it clear that the detenus fathers representation dated 6.1.2007 was duly received by the Office of Law Minister on 8.1.2007. The presumption under Section 114 of the Illustration (e) of Indian Evidence Act is to be raised. When the party had produced the postal receipt and acknowledgment by the office of Law Minister, Court can presume due service of notice under Section 114 Illustration (e) of Indian Evidence Act. 8. Apart from Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act presumption will also arise under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides as under : “ 27. 8. Apart from Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act presumption will also arise under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides as under : “ 27. Meaning of service by post.- Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve‘ or either of the expression ‘give‘ or send‘ or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post”. In our view, a bare denial of receipt of representation in the counter cannot be accepted. 9. In similar facts in an unreported decision in M. A. Mohammed Ismail v. State Government of Tamil Nadu and Others, W.P. (Crl.) No. 193 of 1999, Supreme Court raising the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act in invoking Section 27 of the General Clauses Act held: “In the face of the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, “which is supported by necessary documents as also the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act set out above, a bare denial in the additional counter affidavit filed by Union of India cannot accepted”. 10. Placing reliance upon Keshava v. M. B. Prakash and Others AIR 2001 SC 301 : (2001) 2 SCC 145 , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the representation made on behalf of the detenu before law Minister cannot be construed as representation before appropriate Government and non-consideration would not render the detention illegal. The learned addl. Public Prosecutor has further submitted that instead of making a representation to the appropriate Government or the Confirming authority, the detenus father chose to address representation to the law Minister, even without request to send its copy to the concerned authorities under the Act and hence the detention order is not vitiated. It is fairly well settled that the representation has to be made to the appropriate Government / Confirming Authority. Sending representation to various authorities cannot be allowed to create smokes screen‘ or to take the authorities by surprise. 11. It is fairly well settled that the representation has to be made to the appropriate Government / Confirming Authority. Sending representation to various authorities cannot be allowed to create smokes screen‘ or to take the authorities by surprise. 11. In the decision cited supra, AIR 2001 SC 301 , the detenu was made aware of has right to make his representation to the appropriate Government. But the detenu had sent his representation to the Advisory Board alone even without request to send its copy to the concerned authorities under the Act. Observing that the appropriate Government was justified in confirming the order of detention, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “17. We are satisfied that the detenu In this case was apprised of his right to make representation to the appropriate Government/Authorities against has order of detention did not avail of the opportunity. Instead of making a representation to the Appropriate Government or the Confirming Authority, the detenu chose to address a representation to the Advisory Board alone even without a request to send its copy to the concerned Authorities under the Act. In the absence of representation or the knowledge of the representation having been made by the detenu, the appropriate Government was justified in conforming the order of detention on perusal of record and documents excluding the representation made by the detenu to the advisory Board. For this alleged failure of the appropriate Government, the order of detention of the appropriate Government is neither rendered unconstitutional nor illegal”. 12. The ratio of the above decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. As per Business Rules of the Government, it is the Law Minister who considers the representation sent by the detenu, and on behalf of the detenu. Referring to various case laws and holding that the representation sent to the Law Minister is also a representation to be considered in P. M. S. Mohiadeen Sahib v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary to Government Public (S. C.) Dept. Chennai and Others (2006) 1 MLJ 131, speaking for the Bench, Justice P. SATHASIVAM has observed as under: “ 13. In the light of the above principles, we are of the view that tough the detenu has made pre-detention representation on 4.7.2005. by Secretary to Government Public (S. C.) Dept. Chennai and Others (2006) 1 MLJ 131, speaking for the Bench, Justice P. SATHASIVAM has observed as under: “ 13. In the light of the above principles, we are of the view that tough the detenu has made pre-detention representation on 4.7.2005. which was received by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai - 9, and forwarded to the addressee, Law Minister Government of Tamil Nadu on 5.7.2005 itself in view of the fact that the same had been reiterated in the representation dated 21.7.2005, the Detaining Authority ought to have verified the earlier representation and passed the order after due consideration. We are satisfied that the Detaining authority failed to consider these relevant aspects and the detenu is entitled to succeed”. 13. The ratio of the above decision was applied for quashing the detention order in Harpinder Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government and others, HCP No. 750/2006, disposed of on 21.12.2006, in which one, of us was a member [Justice P.K. MISRA]. 14. Pre-detention representation cannot stand at par with representation made by the detenu under Cl. 15 of Article 22, A bare reading of Article 22(5) would show that right to make a representation enshrined in Article 22(5) is against the order of detention which has been communicated to the detenu, along with the representation. In a catena of decisions, the Madras High Court has held that pre-detention representation sent by, and on behalf of the detenu is to be considered by the Detaining Authority. In HCP No. 750/2006 [supra] it was observed as follows: “ 6. By a series of decisions of Madras High Court it has been held that any pre-detention representation made by the detenu or on his behalf should be considered by the detaining authority and if for some reason it is not possible to consider such representation before the order of detention is passed, such representation should be thereafter considered as expeditiously as possible. 7. In T. M. Syed Ali v. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 2 CTC 490, a Division Bench of this Court held that representation made denying the very occurrence before passing of the order of detention is required to be considered by the detaining authority. 7. In T. M. Syed Ali v. State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 2 CTC 490, a Division Bench of this Court held that representation made denying the very occurrence before passing of the order of detention is required to be considered by the detaining authority. In the said case it was also indicated that it is the duty of the functioning authority to forward such representation to the Government and failure to consider such representation would vitiate the order of detention. 8. Similar view has been taken in several decisions subsequently and it is not necessary to multiply the authorities save and except referring to a very recent Division Bench decision of this Court in P. M. S. Mohideen Sahib v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 MLJ (Cri.) 131, wherein the ratio of the decision in 1992 (2) CTC 490 (supra) has been followed: 15. On behalf of the detenu his father had sent pre-detention representation on 6.1.2007, which was received by the Law Minister on 8.1.2007. In the light of the above principles, we are of the view that the said representation ought to have been considered; but it has not been done. In our view, non-consideration of pre-detention representation has the effect of vitiating the detention order. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the detention order is liable to set aside and this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.