Judgment D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu M.Ahamed. The detenu has been branded as smuggler and detained by the impugned order with a view to effectively preventing him from indulging in smuggling activities in future, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3(1) (ii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974). Challenging the above said order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed. .2. The detention order came to be passed following the detenu indulged in the smuggling activity; that the occurrence was said to have been taken place on 09.08.2007; that the detenu, who was passenger then and bound for Kuala Lumpur by Malaysian Airlines Flight MH-0181/09.08.2007 from Chennai was intercepted during the course of surveillance; that the said surveillance was made on the basis of the information that huge quantity of Ketamine Hydrochloride has been kept concealed in a baggage; that w hen the detenu was about to board the flight with a blue and black colour hand bag, he was intercepted at aero-bridge of the said flight and brought back to Airport; that on a thorough search made on the baggage, it was found to contain packets with description “Annapurna Farm Fresh 100% Wheat Atta”, “Pilsbury Chakki Fresh Atta” in heat sealed condition; that the total number of such packets were found to be 25; that on cutting open each of the said heat sealed packets, silver foiled packets in 24 numbers with markings A, B, C, 1, 2 and one without any marking were found; that on further cutting open of the same, white colour sugar like granular substance was found; that apart from the said 25 packets , 12 nos. of small sized packets having Dry Sundaikai Chips and one packet containing 500 small packets of Nizam brand betal nut were found; that on enquiry the detenu had stated that the white colour granular substance was Ketamine Hydrochloride, a chemical which requires declaration; that the contrabands were confiscated and the contents in all the 25 packets totally weighed 24.500 kgs; that as per Section 113(h) of the Customs Act, 1962, any goods which are not included or in excess of those included in the entry made under the Act, or in the case of baggage in the declaration made under Section 77 is liable to confiscation under the Act; that same is an offence and also punishable under Section 113 of the Act; and that therefore, the order of detention came to be passed with a view to effectively preventing the detenu from indulging in smuggling activities in future. 3. The above detention order is challenged by the wife of the detenu by way of the present habeas corpus petition. 4. Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of detention was passed on 25.09.2007. Even before the said order came to be passed, a pre-detention representation dated 22.08.2007 was made to the Honble Minister for Law, Government of Tamil Nadu. Though the said representation was acknowledged by the Ministry on 23.08.2007, the same has not been disposed of. As the detenus right to make the representation is embodied as fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India, such a right is also available to make a pre detention representation. In the event, a pre detention representation is not considered, the valuable right to the detenu as guaranteed under the Constitution to make such representation and to get a disposal of the same would be deprived of and the fundamental right guaranteed would only be a farce. In such a event, the order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed. .5. Per contra, Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the disposal of the representation by the State Government would arise only in the event, such a representation is made. In the present case, the records would show that no such representation was received in the Ministry of Law, Government of Tamil Nadu. .5. Per contra, Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the disposal of the representation by the State Government would arise only in the event, such a representation is made. In the present case, the records would show that no such representation was received in the Ministry of Law, Government of Tamil Nadu. Hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pre detention was not considered is not acceptable. 6. The detenue has got every right to make a representation after the detention order is passed, which is to be considered as one of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and he has every right to make a pre detention representation, as well. It is too late in the day to argue that a pre detention representation need not be considered and non consideration of such representation would vitiate the order of detention. Of course, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that no such representation was received by the respondent-State to consider and pass orders thereon. In this context, the acknowledgment card produced by the petitioner evidencing the service of the representation on the Ministry of Law on 23.08.2007 is referable. A perusal of the said acknowledgment card would portray that the communication was addressed by the petitioner herein in the name of the Minister for Law, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 and the same has been acknowledged on 23.08.2008. For the factual, the pre detention was received in the Ministry of Law and the same was not considered. Hence, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no such representation was received cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the same is rejected. .7. This leads us, incidentally to the next question as to whether the representation addressed to the Minister for Law, Government of Tamil Nadu could be considered to be a pre detention representation. Hence, the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that no such representation was received cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the same is rejected. .7. This leads us, incidentally to the next question as to whether the representation addressed to the Minister for Law, Government of Tamil Nadu could be considered to be a pre detention representation. We hasten to add that it is one thing to say, that if, the order of detention was passed and in the order of detention, the detaining authority had indicated the authority to whom the representation should be made, the detenu or on behalf of the detenu could make such representation to the specified authority under the detention order as a matter of right and in such circumstances those representations made within the stipulated period should be considered and disposed of. However, the consideration as to the pre detention representation would be entirely different. Before a detention order is passed, the detenu may not be aware of the authority who will pass the order of detention and in such circumstances all that expected for a person anticipating the order of detention to make a representation to the Investigating Officer of the concerned case or a competent authority to pass the order of detention. In this case, contentions made in the pre detention representation is in respect of an offence under the Customs Act and certainly the order of detention if any passed should be only after the approval of the Minister for Law. Therefore, in all fair, the person, who is in anticipation that the order of detention or on his behalf would entitle to make such a representation to the Minister for Law. In our considered view such a representation would be the representation to the proper and competent authority to consider the same and such authority is vested with the power of approving the order of detention. 8. In this context, following judgments are referable. A Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.Nos. 609 and 610 of 2007 dated 28.02.2008 [Y. Mohamed Ali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others] had an occasion to consider a similar situation and after placing reliance on the Business Rules of the Government has held that it is the Minister for Law to consider the representation sent by the detenu or on his behalf. 9. 609 and 610 of 2007 dated 28.02.2008 [Y. Mohamed Ali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others] had an occasion to consider a similar situation and after placing reliance on the Business Rules of the Government has held that it is the Minister for Law to consider the representation sent by the detenu or on his behalf. 9. In the decision reported in 2006 (1) M.L.J., (Crl.) 131 [P.M.S. Mohiadeen Sahib vs. State of Tamil Nadu] a Division Bench of this Court has analysed the circumstances in which the import of legal implication in not disposing pre-detention representation before passing detention order. This Court has observed that the right of representation under Art.22(5) is a valuable right and it is not a mere formality, but the same has to be considered with an unbiased mind and closest and most zealous scrutiny for the purpose of deciding whether the detention is justified or not. It is further held as under: "...It is settled law that consideration and representation must be effective and purposeful. If the detaining authority had the benefit of the retraction letter sent by the detenu, the manner in which the representation might have been disposed of may still loom large. On that single ground of improper riskless rejection of representation, detenu is bound to succeed..." 13. In the light of the above principles, we are of the view that though the detenu has made pre-detention representation on 7. 2005, which was received by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai-9, and forwarded to the addressee, Law Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu on 7. 2005 itself, in view of the fact that the same had been reiterated in the representation dated 17. 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." 10. 2005 itself, in view of the fact that the same had been reiterated in the representation dated 17. 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." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the decision of another Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007(2) MLJ (Crl.) 581 [R. Baskaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu] in which it is held as follows: "Moreover, even assuming subsequent representations are of similar nature, the very fact that pre-detention representation had been made, but was not brought to the notice, the authorities should have more careful in tracing out such representation rather than rejecting subsequent representation by taking a false plea that no such representation had been received. This itself clearly discloses the lack of proper attitude in such matters." 11. The right of liberty envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is more significant and the authorities concerned shall ensure to watch over the rights guaranteed to the citizens and if any fault, lethargy, recklessness, inadvertence or violation of settled procedure were found, the Court could interfere with. The Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that Article 21 and 22 form corner stone of the Indian Constitution and such right should be zealously guarded by all concerned. While the above said decisions are considered, it is to be observed that the non consideration of the pre-detention representation on the part of the authority would vitiate the order. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor draws attention of this Court by citing the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2004 SCC (Crl.) 239 [Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and Another] wherein Their Lordships, while looking on the conduct of the persons clamped by the detention orders, has observed as follows: "19. As noted supra, for the first time in the review application it was disclosed that the representation was made to the President of India and no representation was made to the State of Tamil Nadu or the Union of India who were arrayed in the writ petition as parties. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to crate confusion and reap an undeserved benefit by adopting such dubious device. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to crate confusion and reap an undeserved benefit by adopting such dubious device. The High Court also transgressed its jurisdiction in entertaining the review petition with an entirely new substratum of issues. Considering the limited scope for review, the High court ought not to have taken into account factual aspects which were not disclosed of were concealed in the writ petition. While dealing with a habeas corpus application undue importance is not to be attached to technicalities, but at the same time where the court is satisfied that an attempt has been made to deflect the course of justice by letting loose red herring the court has to take serious not of unclean approach." 13. In the case on hand, materials are available to show that pre-detention representation was sent on 22.08.2007 and the same was acknowledged by the Ministry of Law, State of Tamil Nadu on 23.08.2007. Since it has been addressed to the Honourable Minister for Law and the Law Ministry, being the concerned authority has to consider the representation sent by or on behalf of the detenu as per the rules of the Government, the failure this regard would definitely vitiate the detention order. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. In the light of the observations made by this Court and also following the decisions of the Supreme Court in non-consideration of the pre-detention representation by the authority concerned, it is held that the default has deprived the detenu of his right from putting forth his representation before passing of the detention order. In view of the said finding, we are of the considered view that the detention order is liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 25.09.2007 passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.