Judgment :- (P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.) 1. The cousin of the detenu Saravan is the petitioner herein and he has filed the Habeas Corpus Petition challenging the order of detention dated 13.1.2011 made in Cr.M.P.No.l/ 2011(CS), passed by the second respondent. 2. On the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority citing two adverse cases in (i) Crime No. 1297/2010 registered on the file of Uthukuli Police Station, Tiruppur District, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7(l)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and (ii) Crime No.25/2010 registered on the file of Tiruppur Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department for the alleged offence punishable under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7 (l)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the ground case in Crime No. 107/2010 registered on the file of Tiruppur Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department for the alleged offence punishable under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with 7 (l)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955, and after looking into the materials available, the second respondent viz. the District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District, formed an opinion that the detenu was to be termed as "BLACK MARKETEER" since his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities to the public as contemplated under Section 3(2)(a) read with 3(1) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, an Order of detention under the Essential Commodities Act, 1980, was necessary. Based on the said subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority it passed the order of detention dated 13.1.2011. The said Order is under challenge in this petition. 3. Though the order of detention is assailed on various grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the contention that a post-detention representation sent by the petitioner on behalf of the detenu was not considered by the third respondent and on the other hand, the same was returned for untenable reason and that has caused prejudice to the detenu and on that ground alone, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 4. We also heard the submissions made by Mr.A.DJagadish Chandira, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and Mr. 4. We also heard the submissions made by Mr.A.DJagadish Chandira, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and Mr. R.Rajaram, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the third respondent. 5. In para - 7 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has informed the detenu that he can make a representation to the Central Government and if he chooses to do so, he should send such a representation to the following address: "The Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, (Department of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001. In the corresponding vernacular version of the grounds of detention, the address to which the representation to the Central government should be sent is furnished thus: TAMIL 6. The petitioner has chosen to send a representation, on behalf of the detenu, to the Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs), Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan New Delhi - 110 0011. The Tram1 and 'To' addresses have been provided in vernacular (Tamil). A comparison of the address of the Additional Secretary to Government of India found in the returned cover tallies with the address of the Additional Secretary found in the vernacular version of the grounds of detention. When that is so, the return of the cover containing the post-detention representation, no doubt, has caused prejudice to the detenu. Even in case it turns out that the address found in the returned cover is Incomplete1, such a mistake has crept in only because of the address furnished by the detaining authority in the vernacular version of the grounds of detention as the address to which the representation had to be sent. Therefore, denial of an opportunity is caused either because of the furnishing of an incomplete address in the grounds of detention or because of the return of the cover addressed to the official of the central Government concerned noting the address of the official correctly In either case, the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order of the second respondent in Detention Order Cr.M.P.No.l/2011(CS) dated 13.1.2011 is aside. 7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order of the second respondent in Detention Order Cr.M.P.No.l/2011(CS) dated 13.1.2011 is aside. The detenu Saravanan, S/o. Ravi is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.