Judgment : M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 4. 2009, in C.P.O/T.C/I.S/ B.M/D.O.No.02/2009, whereby the petitioners brother-in-law V.Ramachandran was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act 1980, branding him as a black marketeer. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The affidavit in support of the petition along with the grounds of attack are perused apart from all the materials available including the order under challenge. 3. Admittedly, the sponsoring authority pursuant to the registration of a ground case in Crime No.134/2009 registered by Civil Supplies CID, Tiruchirappalli, under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on 23. 2009, when the detenu was found in possession of 40 bags of PDS rice, made a recommendation before the detaining authority. On perusal and scrutiny of all the materials available, the sponsoring authority recorded its satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of distribution of essential commodities to the public and hence in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities, an order of detention has got to be passed, and accordingly made the order which is challenged before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel raised only one point that a post-detention representation was made on 14. 2009, to the Central Government the third respondent herein; that the representation was actually received by the Central Government, and thereafter, it was also rejected on 25. 2009, but only an intimation was sent by the third respondent; that it was also received by the detenu; that under the circumstances, what was served on him was only an intimation and not an order of rejection; and that so long as a speaking order of rejection with all the reasons is not made or served upon the party, he could not understand whether his representation was considered properly. 5. The learned Counsel took the Court to paragraph 4 of the Counter filed by the third respondent wherein it is candidly admitted that rejection intimation was given by a telegraphic message. According to the Counsel, it would not satisfy the law, and on that ground it has got to be set aside. 6. 5. The learned Counsel took the Court to paragraph 4 of the Counter filed by the third respondent wherein it is candidly admitted that rejection intimation was given by a telegraphic message. According to the Counsel, it would not satisfy the law, and on that ground it has got to be set aside. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. As seen above and also on scrutiny of the materials available, it would be quite clear that the order under challenge came to be passed on 4. 2009, on the strength of the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that one one ground case as referred to above was registered against the detenu. On scrutiny of the materials available, this Court is able to see force in the above ground raised by the petitioners Counsel. It is admitted by the third respondent that there was a post-detention representation made on 14. 2009; that the same was also received, and it was also rejected on 25. 2009. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, what was actually communicated to the party was not the order of rejection, but only an intimation of rejection which would be quite evident from paragraph 4 of the counter filed by the third respondent which reads thus: ".....This fact of rejection of representation was communicated to the detainee through Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu vide telegram dated 25. 2009." 8. From the above, it would be quite evident that after the rejection was made, what was communicated to the party was only a telegraphic message as to the rejection. It would even indicate that the order of rejection was not at all served upon the party. Service of order of rejection alone would satisfy law for two reasons. Firstly, the party could understand whether his representation was considered properly or not. Secondly, whether a speaking order was passed or not, and it must be made known. Mere communication of rejection intimation would not satisfy law. In such circumstances, on that ground, the order would suffer, and it is liable to be set aside. 9. Firstly, the party could understand whether his representation was considered properly or not. Secondly, whether a speaking order was passed or not, and it must be made known. Mere communication of rejection intimation would not satisfy law. In such circumstances, on that ground, the order would suffer, and it is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forth unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.