Judgment :- R. Regupathi, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned orders of detention, dated 13.04.2007, whereby, his brothers by name Mohamed Asif and Mohamed Masood have been detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (in short COFEPOSA Act). 2. The sole ground raised in the above Petitions to beset the orders of detention is, non-consideration of the pre-detention representations, dated 04.04.2007, sent by the mother of the detents. 3. It is seen that the detention orders were clamped on the detents on 13.04.2007 and the pre-detention representations, dated 04.04.2007, have been sent by their mother to the Law Minister, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, through speed post. Copy of the representations dated 04.04.2007, the certificate issued by the postal authorities in proof of delivery of the speed post to the addressee viz., Law Minister, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, and the acknowledgement, dated 06.04.2007, of the Secretariat for receipt of the post by the office of the Law Minister, have been furnished in the typed set of papers. On the strength of such materials, it is submitted that those pre-detention representations have not been taken into consideration at all by the Law Minister while approving the order of detention and that, subsequent to the detention, representations, dated 09.07.2007, have been sent, wherein, the pre-detention representations have been mentioned; however, while disposing of the representations dated 09.07.2007, in para No.7, it is simply stated that the pre-detention representations dated 04.04.2007 had not been received by the Department. 3-A. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed much reliance on a Judgment of this Court, rendered in HCP No.195 of 2007, wherein, it has been held that the pre-detention representation sent to the Law Minister must be considered and disposed of, failing which, the order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground that prejudice was caused to the detent on account of the same. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that no pre-detention representation has been received by the office of the Law Minister and in that regard, a specific reply was given while disposing of the representations dated 09.07.2007. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that no pre-detention representation has been received by the office of the Law Minister and in that regard, a specific reply was given while disposing of the representations dated 09.07.2007. It is further contended that when the detents were intimated/advised to send representation to the authorities specifically mentioned in the grounds of detention, inasmuch as the pre-detention representations have been erroneously sent to the authority not mentioned in the grounds, the same need not be taken into consideration at all. 5. We have carefullyconsidered the contention raised with reference to the materials available on record and also the Division Bench judgment of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Division Bench, after taking note of similar counter argument advanced by the Additional Public Prosecutor by drawing support from the decision reported in AIR 2001 (2) SCC 145 (Keshava vs. M.B. Prakash and others) on the ground that the representation made on behalf of the detent before Law Minister cannot be construed as representation before appropriate Government, distinguished the said decision on the factual aspects involved and held thus: "The ratio of the above decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. As per Business Rules of the Government, it is the Law Minister who considers the representation sent by the detent, and on behalf of the detent." The Bench also relied on the observation made by P. Sathasivam, J. (as He then was) speaking for the Bench in P.M.S. Mohiadeen Sahib v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Government, Public (S.C.) Dept., Chennai, and others (2006 (1) MLJ 131), and the said observation is quoted below:- "13. In the light of the above principles, we are of the view that though the detent has made pre-detention representation on 7. 2005, which was received by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai-9, and forwarded to the addressee, Law Minster, Government of Tamil Nadu on 05.07.2005 itself, in view of the fact that the same had been reiterated in the representation dated 27. 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 detent is entitled to succeed. " 6. 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 detent is entitled to succeed. " 6. On considering the facts involved in the present case, we are of the view that there is utter failure on the part of the Government in considering and disposing of the pre-detention representations made on behalf of the detents and further, the contra argument advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not merit acceptance in the light of the materials available in the form of proof of delivery, acknowledgement/entries in the Office Register, etc. It follows that the orders of detention passed against the detents have to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petitions stand allowed and the detention orders dated 13.04.2007 passed against Mohamed Asif and Mohamed Masood is quashed. The detents are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required in connection with any other case or cause.