Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent made in C3.D.O.No.53/2009 dated 27.06.2009 whereby the husband of the petitioner namely Elangovan was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 branding him as a black marketeer. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition along with all the materials including the order under challenge are perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Concededly, the order under challenge came to be passed pursuant to the registration of two adverse cases namely (i) Vellore Civil Supplies CID, Cr.No.234/2009 dated 25. 2009 u/s 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955 r/w 403 IPC for alleged transportation of 120 bags of PDS rice each weighing approximately 50 kgs (ii) Vellore Civil Supplies CID, Cr.No.256/2009 dated 6. 2009 u/s 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955 for alleged transportation of 50 bags of PDS rice each weighing 50 kgs and also a ground case in Crime No.263/2009 by Civil Supplies C.I.D., Vellore u/s 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 r/w 7(i)(a)(ii) of EC Act 1955 and r/w 403, 353, 506(ii) & 307 IPC for the alleged possession of 35 bags of PDS rice each containing 50 kgs. All the materials pursuant thereto were placed before the Board. On scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority was satisfied that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the public distribution system and hence, in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, an order of detention has got to be made under the provisions of the Act, and accordingly made the order which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel would submit that the grounds of detention would indicate that the Inspector of Police, CSCID, Vellore drew a rough sketch and also prepared an observation mahazar at 07.30 hours on 16. 2009 in the presence of witnesses in respect of the place of occurrence where the above 35 bags of PDS rice were seized from the detenu. Thus, it could be seen that the observation mahazar was one of the relied upon document but the copy of the same was not served upon the detenu. 2009 in the presence of witnesses in respect of the place of occurrence where the above 35 bags of PDS rice were seized from the detenu. Thus, it could be seen that the observation mahazar was one of the relied upon document but the copy of the same was not served upon the detenu. 5. Added further learned counsel, a pre-detention representation was made by the petitioner on 16. 2009 and a communication was served upon the detenu as if the same was rejected. The date of rejection is found as 26. 2009 which was the date of the detention order. Apart from that, a reading of the communication would indicate that it was signed on behalf of the detaining authority only on 26. 2009. Thus, it would be clear, on the date when the order came to be passed, the pre-detention representation was available at the hands of the authority but the same was not considered. Added further learned counsel that there was arrest intimation card which contains a column for the signature of the accused but the signature of the accused was not found. Hence, the order under challenge suffers from all the above said aspects and the order has got to be set aside. 6. The Court heard the learned counsel for the State on the above contentions. 7. It is not in controversy that as stated above, the order came to be passed on the above factual position. It is also not in dispute as could be seen from the grounds of detention that the observation mahazar was prepared by the Investigating Officer, CSCID Vellore at about 07.30 hours on 16. 2009 of the place where the property was actually recovered from the detenu. Thus, it would be quite clear that it was one of the relied upon documents but the copy of the same was not served upon the detenu. Admittedly, the pre-detention representation was made by the petitioner on 16. 2009 and the detention order came to be passed on 26. 2009. Page No.93 of the booklet would indicate that there was rejection of pre-detention representation made on 16. 2009. A perusal of the rejection order would indicate that the same was prepared on 26. 2009 but it was signed on behalf of the detaining authority only on 26. 2009 when the order of detention came to be passed on 26. 2009. Page No.93 of the booklet would indicate that there was rejection of pre-detention representation made on 16. 2009. A perusal of the rejection order would indicate that the same was prepared on 26. 2009 but it was signed on behalf of the detaining authority only on 26. 2009 when the order of detention came to be passed on 26. 2009 which would clearly indicate that this pre-detention representation which was actually in the hands of the authorities was not considered by the authority before taking a decision which would greatly affect the detention order. Apart from that, in so far as the arrest intimation card column mention for the accused signature is concerned, it remains blank and not signed by the accused and no explanation was forthcoming from the State. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the detention order suffers from infirmity and it is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.