Judgment :- K.N. BASHA, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu and he has come forward with this petition challenging the order of detention dated 10.02.2012 passed by the first respondent branding him as 'Black Marketer'. 2. The first respondent passed the detention order based on the adverse case registered against the petitioner in Crime No.577 of 2011 on the file of the Civil Supplies C.I.D., Chennai, for the contravention of the Section 3(1) of the Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobile) Order 2000 r/w Section 7(1)a(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Section 285 IPC on the allegation of illegal storage of adulterated oil in the tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-B-3373. 3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-V, who has led the special team, alleged to have seen the petitioner/detenu loading oil in the Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-23-B-3373 and ascertained that he is the owner of a firm functioning under the name and style as Balaji Transports. Thereafter, a case was registered in Crime No.441 of 2011 for the above said offences on the file of M-1, Madhavaram Police Station and subsequently, it was transferred to the file of the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Chennai, in Crime No.577 of 2011. The sample oil seized was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Chennai, and ultimately, it is alleged that as per the Chemical Analysis report, the liquids were found to be Diesel admixed with residual oil (used engine oil) and suspended carbaneous substances were detected in the extracts. Accordingly, the said case was under investigation which necessitated the detaining authority, namely, the first respondent to pass the impugned detention order dated 10.02.2012. 4. Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/detenu, though raised several grounds, would mainly contend that the detenu has sent his representation dated 27.02.2012 to both the State Government and the Central Government authorities, but both the authorities have failed to consider the representation and as such, the valuable fundamental right of the detenu has been violated due to the conduct of non-consideration of the representation by the Central Government as well as by the State Government authorities. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/detenu that there is no reply or any order received from the State Government and as per the counter filed by the Central Government, it is stated at paragraph 4 that the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012 was received from the office of the first respondent with a covering letter dated 13.03.2012, but they have not received the English version of detention order and grounds of detention and as such, they have stated that the Central Government was not able to consider the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/detenu that it is mandatory on the part of the State Government as well as the Central Government to consider the representation of the detenu as he raised several grounds apart from seeking the relief of furnishing certain documents and the state Government neither supplied the document sought for nor passed any orders on the representation and the Central Government has come forward with the version that they have not furnished with the required documents in spite of their request made to the State Government and as a result, the fundamental right of the detenu conferred under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that if the State or the Central Government could have considered the representation of the petitioner/detenu, the authorities could have taken note of the grounds raised in the representation and the possibility of revocation of the detention order cannot be ruled out. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions : 1. USHA AGARWAL V. UNION OF INDIA ( 2007 (1) SCC 295 ) and 2. SAHUL HAMEED V. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA (2007 (1) MLJ (Crl) 1089). 6. Mr. K.P. Ananthakrishna, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that the detenu, namely, the petitioner herein, has preferred the present petition on 01.03.2012 and the same was admitted and notice was taken by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on 02.03.2012, whereas, the representation is dated 27.02.2012 and as such, there is absolutely no necessity for considering the representation as the detenu has already challenged the very detention order and the matter is sub judice before this Court. In support of such contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in DAVID PATRICK WARD V. UNION OF INDIA (1992 SCC (Cri.) 814). 7. Mr.Haja Mohideen Gisthi, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, would contend that as far as the Central Government is concerned, they have received the representation of the petitioner/detenu dated 27.02.2012 through the first respondent along with the covering letter dated 13.03.2012 on 20.03.2012. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel that thereafter, the central Government issued a reminder dated 23.03.2012 to the state Government seeking for furnishing of the English version of the detention order, grounds of detention, approval of state Government and the supporting documents. But they have been furnished only the English version of approval of state and supporting documents in the form of Booklet on 23.03.2012. But the state Government has not furnished the other documents sought for in spite of reminder sent by the central Government dated 23.03.2012 and as a result, the central government was not able to consider the representation of the detenu and as such, there is no fault on the part of the central Government for non-consideration of the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012. 8. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. At the outset, it is to be stated that it is not disputed by the State Government and the Central government that the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012 was received and the same was not considered by both the authorities. As far as the State Government is concerned, it is contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that as the detenu soon after sending the representation dated 27.02.2012 filed the present petition before this Court on 01.03.2012 and the same was admitted on 02.03.2012, on the same day the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken notice for the State Government, namely, the respondents 1 and 2 and as the petitioner has challenged the very detention order and the matter is sub judice, there is no question of considering the representation of the detenu at all. 10. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in DAVID PATRICK WARD V. UNION OF INDIA reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 814. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision held as hereunder : "23. The representation stated to have been sent to the State Government, it is fairly conceded, is nothing more than a copy of the writ petitions filed before this Court. That was received by the Sate Government through Naini Jail authorities on May 5, 1992. As stated in the affidavit of the third respondent while steps were taken by the State Government for processing the same for consideration, the writ petitions have come to be filed on May 5, 1992. Notice on the writ petitions was received by the State Government on May 13, 1992. Therefore, the question of consideration of the representation on a matter, which is sub judice did not arise. If regard is had to the clear and firm stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government that the reliefs sought by the petitioners in the writ petitions cannot be granted, question of the State Government now considering the representation, which is nothing but the writ petition itself, does not arise. In this situation, the decision of this Court in Narendra Purshotam Umrao V. B.B. Gujral (1979) 2 SCC 637 and Syed Farooq Mohammad V. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 537 on the basis of which need for expeditious consideration of representation by the State Government was emphasised cannot be of any help." It is relevant to point out that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken note of the specific and definite stand taken by the State Government by filing a counter-affidavit before this Court. It is to be stated that as far as the case on hand is concerned, the state Government has not filed any counter-affidavit till date and it is only now contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor before this Court by raising the above said point. 11. Be it as it may, the fact remains that the detenu has sent his representation dated 27.02.2012 and he has filed this present petition on 01.03.2012 and the same was admitted and the notice was taken on 02.03.2012. 11. Be it as it may, the fact remains that the detenu has sent his representation dated 27.02.2012 and he has filed this present petition on 01.03.2012 and the same was admitted and the notice was taken on 02.03.2012. The undisputed fact remains, as already pointed out by us, that the central government is totally unaware of filing of any petition on the date of receiving the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012. The said factor is very much evident from the counter filed by the central government before this Court in this matter. It is pertinent to note that it is specifically and categorically stated by the central government in its counter-affidavit that they have received the representation of the detenu dated 27.2.2012 through the first respondent herein along with covering letter dated 13.03.2012 on 20.03.2012 enclosing only the English version of the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012 without enclosing the detention order, grounds of detention and other relevant documents. It is further specifically stated in the said counter-affidavit by the central Government that thereafter they have sent a reminder dated 23.3.2012 to the State Government seeking English version of detention order, grounds of detention, approval of the state Government and supporting documents. But the State Government has furnished only English version of its approval and supporting documents in the form of Booklet, but they have not furnished the English version of the detention order, grounds of detention etc., It is also relevant to note that in the very same counter, the central Government has specifically stated that even thereafter they have sent another reminder dated 30.03.2012, but they have not received any information or any documents sought for by them and as a result, they were not in a position to consider the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the state Government effectively prevented the central Government from considering the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012 and as a result, the fundamental right of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India is certainly violated and as a result, the detention order is vitiated. 12. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the state Government effectively prevented the central Government from considering the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012 and as a result, the fundamental right of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India is certainly violated and as a result, the detention order is vitiated. 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Usha Agarwal V. Union of India reported in 2007 (1) SCC 295 pointed out that it is the duty of the State and the Central Government to consider the representation submitted by the detenu. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder : "24. The order of detention states that detenu can make representations to (i) the detaining authority, (ii) the Central Government, and (iii) the Advisory Board, in regard to the detention. The detenu has a constitutional as also statutory right to make a representation against detention not only to the detaining authority but to any authority which can revoke the order of detention. ...." (emphasis supplied by us) 13. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in respect of similar and identical matter as that of the instant case in Sahul Hameed V. Additional Secretary to Govt. of India reported in 2007 (1) MLJ (Crl) 1089. In the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows : "10. Both the State and the Central Governments have got the power to revoke the order of detention. When the State Government is empowered to consider the representation and could revoke the same, a similar power is also vested in the Central Government for exercising in appropriate cases. Such power can be exercised not only on a representation made by the detenu, but also on a report received from the State Government. The only requirement for the Central Government to consider the necessity to pass the order of detention is the knowledge of detention either by a representation from the detenu or a report from the State Government. Such power can be exercised not only on a representation made by the detenu, but also on a report received from the State Government. The only requirement for the Central Government to consider the necessity to pass the order of detention is the knowledge of detention either by a representation from the detenu or a report from the State Government. Though Subsection (4) of Section 3 does not indicate specifically as to the corresponding obligation for the Central Government to consider and pass orders on the report of the State Government, we are of the considered view that forwarding the report by the State Government to the Central Government as contemplated under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 is not an empty formality and cannot be construed only to keep the record complete, as it has got a definite purpose in terms of the fundamental right of the detenu guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In this context, the power conferred on the Central Government to consider and revoke the order of detention under Section 14 shall also be kept in mind. We therefore hold that the report of the State Government shall be considered and orders shall be passed by the Central Government and non-consideration of either the representation made by the detenu or the report received from the State Government would certainly result in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and in such event, the order of detention is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 11. A similar question as to whether the Central Government should consider and pass orders on the report of the State Government arose under the provisions of COFEPOSA. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act mandates the State Government to send a report to the Central Government and the said provision is in pari materia to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980. Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act also provides a power on the Central Government for revocation, as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act 7 of 1980. Section 11 of the COFEPOSA Act also provides a power on the Central Government for revocation, as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act 7 of 1980. While considering the scope of the power of the Central Government under the COFEPOSA Act to consider the report of the State Government, the Apex Court in Tara Chand V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1980 SC 1361 : (1980) 2 SCC 321 , has held as follows: "Section 11(1) of the COFEPOSA clearly enjoins that the Central Government may revoke or modify an order passed by the State Government. Once a representation is made to the Central Government, it is duty bound to consider the same in order to exercise its discretion either in rejecting or accepting it. If there is inordinate delay in considering the representation that would clearly amount to violation of the provisions of Article 22(5) as to render the detention unconstitutional and void." A similar question under the provisions of COFEPOSA Act again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Shyam Ambalal Siroya V. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 789 : (1980) 2 SCC 346 , wherein it has been held as follows: "The power of the Central Government to revoke the order of detention implies that the detenu can make a representation for exercise of that power. Any petition for revocation of an order of detention should be dealt with reasonable expedition. It may be permissible for the Central Government to take reasonable time for disposing any revocation petition. But it would not be justified in ignoring the representation for revocation of the detention as a statutory duty is cast upon the Central Government. It is necessary that the government should apply its mind and either revoke the order of detention or dismiss the petition, declining to order for revocation." Both the above judgments were quoted with approval by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in Sabir Ahmed V. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 295 . 12. In view of the above judgments of the Apex Court, we hold that the power of the Central Government to revoke the order of detention must be read with the corresponding duty to consider and pass orders on the report of the State Government. 13. 12. In view of the above judgments of the Apex Court, we hold that the power of the Central Government to revoke the order of detention must be read with the corresponding duty to consider and pass orders on the report of the State Government. 13. Coming to the facts of this case, admittedly, the State Government had forwarded the report to the Central Government on 2.8.2006 and the said report was received by the Central Government on 7.8.2006. In terms of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980, the State Government also forwarded the other particular leading to the grounds of detention. As those particulars were in Tamil and the Central Government was not in a position to consider the same for want of English translation, it requested the State Government to furnish the English version of the documents in the communication dated 11.8.2006. It is the specific stand of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India that in spite of the said request, the State Government has failed to forward the English version of the documents called for and for the said purpose, the report has not been considered and no order is passed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, though has submitted that the report was forwarded to the Central Government, is not in a position to furnish the further details as to whether the English version of the documents were either furnished along with the report or at least when they were required by the Central Government in its communication dated 11.8.2006. From the facts, it is clear that the Central Government has not so far considered and taken any decision on the report of the State Government forwarded under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act 7 of 1980." 14. The Division Bench in the decision cited supra also placed reliance on the provisions under Section 14 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and the said provision reads as hereunder : "14. Revocation of detention orders. The Division Bench in the decision cited supra also placed reliance on the provisions under Section 14 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and the said provision reads as hereunder : "14. Revocation of detention orders. -(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified - (a) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of a State Government, by that State Government or by the Central Government; (b) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer of the Central Government or by a State Government, or by the Central Government. (2) the revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh detention order under section 3 against the same person in any case, where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the Central Government or a State Government or an officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that such an order should be made." 15. The Division Bench in the decision cited supra also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and ultimately held that the non-consideration of the representation of the detenu by the State Government as well as by the Central Government would certainly result in violation of the fundamental right conferred under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and accordingly, held that the detention order is vitiated. 16. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case, as already pointed out by us, the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012 was not at all considered by both the authorities, namely, state Government as well as the central Government. 17. 17. At the risk of repetition, it is to be reiterated, as already pointed out by us, that though the State Government has come forward with the version that in view of the petitioner/detenu filing the writ petition on 01.03.2012 itself soon after his representation dated 27.02.2012, the matter has become sub judice, the fact remains that the state Government has not come forward with any counter to that effect till date. However, even accepting such version, we are of the considered view that it is the duty of the State Government to furnish relevant documents to the central government enabling the central government to consider the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012. As we have already pointed out, as far as the central government is concerned, they are not aware about the filing of the present petition at the time of receipt of the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012 along with the covering letter dated 13.03.2012 sent by the first respondent herein. As it is already stated, the central Government received the notice in the present petition only in the month of May 2012. However, as already pointed, there is a lapse on the part of the State Government for not furnishing the full records to the Central Government and the Central Government having received the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012 coupled with the records already sent by the State Government, even as per the admitted version of the central Government as per its counter, namely, English version of the approval of the State Government and supporting documents in the form of Booklet, cannot be absolved by performing its statutory and mandatory obligation of considering the representation of the petitioner / detenu dated 27.02.2012 which resulted in violation of fundamental right of the petitioner/detenu guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India and thereby, the detention order is vitiated. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons coupled with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions cited supra, we are of the considered view that the non-consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2012 by the state and the central government would vitiate the impugned detention order. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons coupled with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in the decisions cited supra, we are of the considered view that the non-consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2012 by the state and the central government would vitiate the impugned detention order. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the first respondent herein in Memo No.2/2012 dated 10.02.2012 is hereby set aside and the petitioner, viz., Anantha Pandian, S/o. Arjunan, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.