Judgment :- S. Palanivelu, J. 1. The petitioner is friend of the detenu viz., T. Ganeshrajan S/o Thiyagarajan Nadar, who has been branded as a Black Marketeer and detained by means of a detention order passed by the third respondent in proceedings No. PA to DSO Confdl.02/2008 dated 22.01.2008. 2. The facts of the Ground case go to the effect that on 30.8.2007 at about 24.00 hours on a tip off the Inspector of Police (incharge) Civil supplies CID, Tirunelveli with his party and with the Special Revenue Inspector, Flying Squad, Thoothukudi, the Special Revenue Inspector, Civil Supplies, Thoothukudi, checked the godown by name Win Ware Housing situated at No.4/28 G, Harbour Express Road, Thoothukudi and seized 1994 bags of Public Distribution system rice (each weighing 50 Kgs) and 4 lorries, used for the smuggling of Public Distribution System rice bags, bearing Registration Nos. TN 30 Y-4456, TN 69 Y-8357, TN 69 Y-5397 and TN 28 M-4556. In this regard, on the complaint of the the District Supply Officer, Thoothukudi, a case in Tirunelveli CSCID Cr.No.336/07 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a) (ii) of E.C. Act 1955, was registered on 31.08.2007. Investigation disclosed that the detenu viz., Ganeshrajan S/o M. Thiyagarajan Nadar of Kovilpatty has taken the building (where the public distribution system rice bags are seized) for rent and smuggled 1994bags of Public Distribution System rice and kept inside the godown Winware Housing. All the 1994 bags of Public Distribution System rice were handed over to the TNCSC Godown, Port, Thoothukudi on 38. 2007. The samples were collected from the seized Public Distribution Rice bags and sent to the TNCSC, Regional Laboratory, Thoothukudi for analysis. The quality Inspector of Regional Laboratory has opined that the samples are PDS rice. 3. We have heard Mr.D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. 4. The contention of Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner is three pronged. His first and foremost contention is that while the detenu was supplied with the translated version of the detention order in Tamil, it has not been properly translated, by means of which, he is deprived of his valuable right of presenting an effective representation. 4. The contention of Mr. D. Veerasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner is three pronged. His first and foremost contention is that while the detenu was supplied with the translated version of the detention order in Tamil, it has not been properly translated, by means of which, he is deprived of his valuable right of presenting an effective representation. He points out the portion in paragraph 8 of the Detention Order which goes thus: "Any representation that is made by him to the Government will be duly considered by the Government and will also be placed before the Advisory Board along with his case details for consideration under Section 10 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980. Thiru T. Ganeshrajan is informed that he is entitled to be heard in person by the Advisory Board." While translated version of the above said portion is perused by this Court, it appears as follows: While the above said translated version is taken for consideration, we are of the view that the English version has been properly translated to Tamil and there is nothing to show that it has been translated in a wrong manner so as to mislead the detenu. On this score, we are not at all accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The next limb of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his representation addressed to the State Government and the Orders passed thereon have not been placed before the Advisory Board and hence he is very much prejudiced by the lapse on the part of the authorities concerned. The petitioner had preferred a representation on 2. 2008 addressed to the second respondent which was received by the said authority on 12. 2008 and the same was considered by the Government. However, it was rejected on 3. 2008 and the fact of result was intimated to the detenu on 3. 2008. There is no delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation. The detention order passed on 22.01.2008 was duly approved by the State Government on 31. 2008. This Court has gone through the relavant file which contains all the materials pertaining to this case. The proceedings of the Advisory Board held on 12. 2008. There is no delay on the part of the Government in disposing of the representation. The detention order passed on 22.01.2008 was duly approved by the State Government on 31. 2008. This Court has gone through the relavant file which contains all the materials pertaining to this case. The proceedings of the Advisory Board held on 12. 2008 is available among the file, in which it has been clearly mentioned that the materials available on record do prima facie show the involvement of the detenu in the violation alleged. A careful reading of the said proceedings would pave way to conclude that before passing the proceedings, the Chairman and Members of the Advisory Board have thoroughly gone through the file, considered all the materials available thereon and passed the same. 6. Stressing his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court(wherein one of us constituted the Coram) in H.C.P.No.1739 of 2007 dated 24. 2008, in which it is held that if the representation preferred on behalf of the detenu and the order of rejection were not placed before the Advisory Board it would vitiate the order of detention. While passing the above said Order the Division Bench has also considered the earlier decisions of this Court reported in 2004 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 296 [Selvi v. State of Tamil Nadu etc.,] and 1999 (II) CTC 175 [Devarajan v. State rep. By the Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai and another]. Those authorities would go a long way to show that the failure on the part of the Government to place the representation and the rejection order made thereon by the competent authority before the Advisory Board would vitiate the order of detention. But the facts and circumstances in this matter are distinguishable. In the case on hand, it has been vividly mentioned in the proceedings of the Advisory Board that all the materials have been gone through and only after their consideration it has come to a conclusion that the involvement of the detenu in the violation alleged was shown. In the light of the above circumstances, the contention putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not be countenanced. 7. In the light of the above circumstances, the contention putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not be countenanced. 7. Another leaf of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, neither family members nor any persons known to the accused were intimated as to the arrest of the detenu in CSCID Cr.No.336/07. Even though such a specific ground is projected on behalf of the detenu, there is no proper explanation on the part of the respondents. This Court, after hearing the matter, granted time to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to peruse the records and to report to the Court whether intimation was given to any of the family members or the relatives of the detenu or any of the persons known to him. He produced a xerox copy of the Arrest Memo, in which in column 12, it is stated that one Mariappan S/o Subbiah, No.58, Kadalaikkara Street, Kovilpatti, has been informed about the arrest of the detenu. At the bottom of the Arrest Memo, the signature of the detenu as well as the signature of a witness are found. Firstly, it is not shown who is the said Mariappan and whether he is relative of the detenu or any persons known to him. Nextly, it could not be found out whether the signature belongs to the said witness Mariappan. Since those things have not been clarified before this Court, it could not be concluded that the fact of arrest of the detenu was duly intimated to either the relatives of the detenu or any persons known to him. That apart, the copy of the said arrest memo was not even furnished to the detenu. In this situation, we are left with no option except to reach a conclusion that the arrest was not intimated as per settled procedure to any of the family members or any persons known to the accused/detenu. This lapse on the part of the respondents would certainly vitiate the order of detention and in this regard, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 22.01.2008 passed by the third respondent is quashed. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.