Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner is the mother of the detenue by name Selvaraj S/o.Govindan, who has been detained under Sections 3(2) and 3(3)of the National Security Act by the order of the third respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section 3(2) of National Security Act and under Section 3(3) of the said Act. The order of detention came to be passed on the basis of the complaint of one Tmt.Selvi stating that on the night of 14.06.2007 at about 11.00 p.m. after taking dinner she along with her son and daughter went to sleep and about 6.00 a.m. on 15.06.2007, when she went to the bathroom, on the eastern corner of the bathroom, she found an electric wire rolled in the old news paper protruding out, tied with khaki colour thread and connected with a parcel. She has also noticed that such a wire was leading up to the electric board main switch of one Thiru.Govindasamy who is serving in the electricity board and found that two fuse carriers were removed. Therefore, she informed one Thiru.L.Sekar, who is the husband of one ward member and thereafter, she lodged a complaint which was registered in Crime No.197 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act 1908 r/w under Section 307 of IPC. On investigation, it was found that the detenu was the cause for the above offences. Hence, the detention order came to be passed in order to maintain the safety and security of the Nation. 2. In challenge to the order of detention, the Ms.R.Subadra Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on behalf of the detenu a representation dated 30.07.2007 was made to the detaining authority by the mother of the detenu and the same was neither considered nor the copy of the order passed on the representation was communicated to the detenu. Further, she would submit that neither the copy of the representation nor any order of rejection of such representation was placed before the Advisory Board. Therefore, the order of detention in question is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. We have also heard Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents. Further, she would submit that neither the copy of the representation nor any order of rejection of such representation was placed before the Advisory Board. Therefore, the order of detention in question is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. We have also heard Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents. On a perusal of the entire records, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not able draw our attention as to whether the said representation made by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu was either considered or any order was passed on such representation. That apart, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is also not in a position to draw our attention as to whether the representation was placed before the Advisory Board or order copy of the disposal of such representation was placed before the Advisory Board. 4. The issue, as to the fact of non-placement of the representation and the consequential order passed on the representation before the Advisory Board is not res integra. As this court had consistently held that such non placement would vitiate the order of the detention. To quote one such decision is the judgment in Selvi Vs. State rep. by the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and another 2004 – 1 – L.W. (Crl.) 395. It is the specific averment made by the petitioner that the representation dated 30.07.2007 was received by the detaining authority on the same date itself but, the same was not disposed of and the copy of the order was not served on the detenu. While dealing with such averments, in para-11 of the counter affidavit, it is only stated as follows:- "11. Regarding the averments in para e of the grounds of the affidavit, it is not correct to state that it is not known whether the representation sent by the mother of the detenue on 30.07.2007 was considered by the detaining authority and whether the same was forwarded to the Government and to the Advisory Board. In fct, the said representation was given by the detenus mother on 30.07.2007,as Monday petition was considered and forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore for disposal, as it was routine allegation against the police. Hence, the contrary averments are not correct." 5. In fct, the said representation was given by the detenus mother on 30.07.2007,as Monday petition was considered and forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore for disposal, as it was routine allegation against the police. Hence, the contrary averments are not correct." 5. A perusal of the counter affidavit does not indicate of any disposal of the representation, which in fact, was received by the detaining authority on 30.07.2007. Further, the statement in para-11 of the counter affidavit does not indicate as to whether the representation was placed before the Advisory Board, except the reference that the same was forwarded to the Advisory Board. In fact, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the representation, which was made on behalf of the detenu on 30.07.2007, was considered and forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore for disposal. Thereafter, nothing has stated in the counter, as to whether such representation was considered and the same was disposed of by the detaining authority. Therefore, the order of detention is vitiated on the two grounds viz., (i) that the representation made by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu, which was communicated to the detaining authority, was not considered and (ii) that the copy of such representation was also not placed before the Advisory Board. Therefore, the order of detention is necessarily liable to be quashed. 6. For the above said reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 23.07.2007 passed by the third respondent against the detenu by name Selvaraj S/o.Govindan is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.