Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent, dated 05.02.2008 in Detention Order No.01/2008(CS) against one Abuthahir, terming him as Black Marketeer and detaining him under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980). 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition and the counter affidavit also are perused. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. On the strength of 4 adverse cases, namely Crime No.205/05 registered by CSCID, Madurai, Crime Nos.255/05 and 475/05 registered by CSCID, Krishnagiri and Crime No.825/05 registered by CSCID, Salem under Section 6(4) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955 and also a ground case registered in Crime No.92 of 2008, where the incident took place on 2. 2008, the Detaining Authority, the second respondent herein, after looking into the materials available pertaining to those cases and the other materials, was of the opinion that the detenu has indulged in activities, which were prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities under the public distribution system and hence he was to be branded as Black Marketeer and further, in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, it has become necessary to pass an order of detention and accordingly, the Detaining Authority has passed the order of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this court. 4. Advancing arguments in support of the petition, the learned counsel, inter-alia, would submit that the order came to be passed on 05.02.2008, branding the detenu as Black Marketeer; that a representation was made on 2. 4. Advancing arguments in support of the petition, the learned counsel, inter-alia, would submit that the order came to be passed on 05.02.2008, branding the detenu as Black Marketeer; that a representation was made on 2. 2008; that the same was received by the Detaining Authority on 12.02.2008; that the order of detention was approved by the State on 15.02.2008, but the representation made to the Detaining Authority was never considered; that there was violation of vital particulars as to through whom the representation to the Central Government was to be made; that it is not in controversy that during the relevant period, the detenu was actually kept in custody at Central Prison, Trichy; that further in English version of the grounds of detention, it was found that "if the detenu wishes to make any representation to the State Government, it should be made through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai, while in the Tamil version, it has been found as Trichy and thus, it was rather misleading and therefore, the purpose for which the translated version was served upon, was defeated. 5. Added further the learned counsel that there was representation made to the Central Government and it was not at all considered till this time; that while the representation was made on 07.02.2008, the letter of rejection was served upon the detenu only on 3. 2008 and thus, there was a huge delay, which remained unexplained and therefore, for all these grounds, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 6. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. It is not in controversy that the order under challenge was passed by the Detaining Authority, branding him as Black Marketeer, since in the opinion of the Detaining Authority, as could be noticed from the cases registered against him and also the materials available, the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities under the Public Distribution System and also in order to prevent him from doing so in future, a necessity arose to detain him under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing an Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980). 8. Now, all the materials placed before the court are looked into. 8. Now, all the materials placed before the court are looked into. Concededly, the order under challenge came to be passed on 05.02.2008 and a representation was made on 07.02.2008, which was received by the Detaining Authority on 12.02.2008 and the approval was made on 15.02.2008. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the receipt of the said representation is not denied. Nowhere any material is indicative of the fact that the said representation placed before the Detaining Authority was ever considered, but approval was made by the State Government on 15.02.2008 and thus, from this point of view, it could be well seen that the order has become infirm. So far as the delay is concerned, this court is unable to see any delay in considering the representation made and the service of rejection letter. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is found in the grounds of detention in English version that if he wishes to make any representation to the State Government, he should address it to The Secretary to Government, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai, in which he is detained as expeditiously as possible. But, when the Tamil version is looked into, it is found as follows: The translation of Tamil version was given in order to make him understand and to enable him to give representation through the Secretary to the Government through proper channel. But, it is found to be different in the English and Tamil versions. Thus, it is not only creating confusion, but also misleading him. The purpose for which Tamil translated version has been given was to enable him to make representation through proper channel, but in the instant case, the purpose for which the Tamil translated version has been given was actually defeated and therefore, it has caused prejudice to the detenu. 9. So far as the non consideration of the representation by the Central Government till this time was concerned, the reply by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel is that no such representation was made. In the absence of any material to show that any representation was received by the Central Government, no question of accepting such contention would arise and hence that contention cannot be countenanced. 10. In the absence of any material to show that any representation was received by the Central Government, no question of accepting such contention would arise and hence that contention cannot be countenanced. 10. Therefore, for the other two reasons, as referred to above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of detention has got to be quashed. Accordingly, the detention order is set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.