Judgment :- S. Palanivelu, J. The petitioner has been branded as "Goonda". The 2nd respondent clamped detention order dated 19.9.2007 and the petitioner was detained. 2. The petitioner came to the adverse notice of the police in two cases viz., (i) in Crime No.85/2007 on the file of the Tirunelveli Town Prohibition Wing Police Station under section 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act read with Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules 2000 and 279 of the Indian Penal Code in which it is alleged that he transported 16 cans of Rectified Spirit each containing 35 litres and charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Tirunelveli and the case is pending in C.C.No.158 of 2007. (ii) the next case is in Crime No.445/2007 on the file of the Boothapandy Police Station registered under Rule 6,7 of the Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rule 2000 read with 4(1)(aaa) and 14(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Section 57 of the Tamil Nadu Excise Act. In the said case also, it is alleged that he transported Rectified Spirit in 16 cans each containing 35 litres. 3. The ground case was registered under Section 4(i)(aaa), 4(i)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act read with 7 of Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules 2000 on the file of Alangulam Prohibition Enforcement Wing in which it is stated that on 6.8.2007 at 10.30 hours, while Thiru. Sabapathy, Sub Inspector of Police, Kuzhithurai Police Station, Kanyakumari District and police party were watching the movements of vehicles at Padanthalumoodu Check Post, they followed a Maruthi Car bearing Number KL.03 J 3387 and when the car reached a poultry farm, it was stopped. They found 500 cans of Rectified Spirit each containing 35 litres in the said pultry farm. There was no permit for the above said spirit. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that the petitioner had presented a representation before the detaining authority. Even though he rejected the representation, he should have referred the representation to the Government but he had not done so, which are latches on the part of the detaining authority and the same would vitiate the detention order. He preferred the representation on 24.9.2007 before the detaining authority but on 28.9.2007, the detaining authority rejected the representation stating that there is no ground to consider his request. 5. He preferred the representation on 24.9.2007 before the detaining authority but on 28.9.2007, the detaining authority rejected the representation stating that there is no ground to consider his request. 5. In this connection, the learned counsel gained support from the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 18.9.2002 passed in H.C.P.No.1145 of 2002 wherein the learned Judges have held that even though if the detaining authority had rejected the representation, the detaining authority, thereafter should have sent the representation to the Government so as to enable the Government to place it before the Advisory Committee for consideration and since such steps were not taken by the detaining authority, the order got vitiated. 6. The relevant portion of the above said decision goes thus: "The discussion, which we have made above, therefore, shows that the representation of the detenu, which was sent to the detaining authority on 2.5.2002 and received by him on 3.5.2002, which was also considered and rejected by him, was not sent to the Government, though the detaining authority sent only the rejection order, which by itself is not sufficient. The detaining authority ought to have sent the representation of the detenu to the Government for enabling the Government to place the same before the Advisory Board and it will not be out of place for us to refer the fact that the advisory Board met on 6.6.2002 and if the detaining authority has forwarded the representation, which was received by him on 3.5.2002, it would have been placed before the Advisory Board on the said date, which it met. The action of the detaining authority in not forwarding the representation, therefore, vitiates the order of detention. It is, accordingly, set aside." 7. In view of the stand taken by this Court, we are of the considered view that the detaining authority in having not forwarded the representation to the Government, the order of the detention got vitiated. It is an admitted fact that on 26.10.2007, an Advisory Committee Meeting was held and if the detaining authority had forwarded the representation to the Government, it might have been placed before the said Advisory Committee and the necessary decision might have been taken thereon. 8. For the reasons stated above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. It is an admitted fact that on 26.10.2007, an Advisory Committee Meeting was held and if the detaining authority had forwarded the representation to the Government, it might have been placed before the said Advisory Committee and the necessary decision might have been taken thereon. 8. For the reasons stated above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 19.9.2007 is quashed and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith if he is not required in connection with any other case.