Judgment :- P.JYOTHIMANI,J. 1. These Habeas Corpus Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the detenus, who are petitioners herein, challenging the impugned orders of detention dated 08.08.2011 on the allegation that the petitioners are "Slum Grabbers" within the meaning of 2(h) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982)(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The detention orders were passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, who is shown as first respondent in HCP.No.1133 of 2011 and second respondent in HCP.No.1134 of 2011. The orders of detention which were passed on 08.08.2011, even though have been challenged by the petitioners on various grounds like: (a) that the petitioners cannot be termed as "Slum Grabbers"; (b) that decision has been arrived at under the impugned detention orders purely based on the filing of civil suit by the petitioners; (c) that within five days from the date of detention, even though the grounds of detention have been supplied, the set of papers were served only on 14.08.2011 which is beyond 5 days time and therefore it is violative of Section 8(1) of the Act; (d) that the approval granted by the Government is not within 12 days of detention as per Section 3(3) of the Act; (e) that the confirmation dated 03.11.2011 by the Government for detaining the petitioners for 12 months was served on 08.11.2011 and therefore there is a delay; (f) that there has been defects in the booklets and the copies are not legible and in some cases, there has been wrong quoting of pages and crime numbers and that the materials have not been fully supplied. 2. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor retorted the aforesaid contentions by referring to various Judgments to the effect: (a) that for the purpose of declaring the detenues as Slum Grabbers, it is not necessary to have more than one act and even a single act can constitute the same; (b) that the preventive detention is not based on proof, but it is based on suspicion and therefore, it is sufficient if prima facie materials are available and that merely because there has been some technical defects and clerical mistakes, the same cannot vitiate the order of detention; (c) that as per Section 8(1) of the Act, the grounds of detention was served on 08.08.2011 itself and other papers which are connected therewith were served on 12.08.2011 and it is only at the instance of the detenus, since they wanted to go through the entire three volumes, which they have received only on 14.08.2011, on their own volition and therefore on this account, there was no delay; (d) that there was no delay in the Government granting approval within 12 days as per Section 3(3) of the Act; (e) that in passing the confirmation order within a period of 3 months, the Government in fact passed an order on 03.11.2011 and therefore the serving of the copy is not a necessary ingredient; (f) that illegibility of some of the papers in the typed set of papers supplied to the petitioners are not detrimental to the interest of the detenus. 3. Though very many other grounds have been raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective petitioners, we are inclined to allow these Habeas Corpus Petitions on the following ground of non-application of mind by the detaining authority in not considering the representations. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners through their respective wives have made representations on 10.08.2011, ie. two days after the detention, as evidenced in postal receipts stated to have been sent on 10.08.2011 and the proof of delivery issued by the Postal department, the original of which has been produced before us and on perusal, we find that the Office of the Commissioner of Police has received the said representations on 11.08.2011, as it is seen in the postal seal. 5. The petitioners in their respective affidavits have clearly stated about the said representations made by the petitioners wives dated 10.08.2011. 5. The petitioners in their respective affidavits have clearly stated about the said representations made by the petitioners wives dated 10.08.2011. It is true that in respect of the petitioner in HCP.No.1133 of 2011, in the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, the Detaining Authority, he has stated that the representation of the petitioner dated 08.08.2011 addressed to the Detaining Authority, Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu and the representation of the petitioner dated 10.08.2011 through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore are all later in time, ie, after passing the order of detention of the petitioner. On a reference to the representation dated 10.08.2011, we see that these representations are not made by the detenue and they are sent by his wife. Likewise in respect of HCP.No.1134 of 2011, the Commissioner of Police, the detaining authority has in clear term stated that the representations of the petitioners wife dated 18.08.2011 and 10.08.2011 were properly considered and disposed of. However a reference to the order of approval passed by the Government in these cases dated 19.08.2011, the contents of which are as follows: “TAMIL” 6. There is no reference about the representation of the petitioners wives dated 10.08.2011. This shows that at the time of granting approval, the Government in the order dated 19.08.2011 or before that, had not considered the representations made on behalf of the detenus by their respective wives dated 10.08.2011. It clearly connotes the non-consideration of the representation by the detenus which violates the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India which enables as a matter of fundamental right, the detenus can make a representation which means that they have got a right and that representation has to be considered in accordance with law. 7. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India reads as follows: "Article 22(5): When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order". 8. It is also not in dispute that not only the representation of petitioners wives dated 10.08.2011 were not considered, the consideration has never been communicated to the petitioners by the detaining authority. 9. 8. It is also not in dispute that not only the representation of petitioners wives dated 10.08.2011 were not considered, the consideration has never been communicated to the petitioners by the detaining authority. 9. Under almost in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in K.Manoharan Vs. State represented by Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 and another reported in (2011) 2 L.W.(Crl.) 754 , the relevancy of consideration of representation was reiterated as a basic fundamental right of the detenu by relying upon the constitutional Bench decision of the Honble Apex Court in Kameleshkumar Ishwardas Patel Vs. Union of India (1995) 4 SCC 51 wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows: "(14.)Article 22(5) must, therefore, be construed to mean that the person detained has a right to make a representation against the order of detention which can be made not only to the Advisory Board but also to the detaining authority, i.e. the authority that has made the order of detention or the order for continuance of such detention, which is competent to give immediate relief by revoking the said order as well as to any other authority which is competent under law to revoke the order for detention and thereby give relief to the person detained. The right to make a representation carries within it a corresponding obligation on the authority making the order of detention to inform the person detained of his right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authorities who are required to consider such a representation". 10. The right to make a representation carries within it a corresponding obligation on the authority making the order of detention to inform the person detained of his right to make a representation against the order of detention to the authorities who are required to consider such a representation". 10. By referring to the said authoritative pronouncement of the Constitutional Bench of the Honble Apex Court, the Division Bench held that the non-consideration of representation is in violation of the constitutional right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and accordingly set aside the order of detention which reads as follows: "(13.)In the present case, the detaining authority having received the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, before the approval of the detention order, has failed to consider the same, but has simply forwarded it to the State Government for consideration and that would constitute an infraction of the valuable constitutional right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and consequently, such failure would make the order of detention invalid, Therefore, for the above reasons, the order of detention is liable to be set aside." 11. As stated above, many grounds have been raised. Inasmuch as it is clear on fact that the representations made by the wives of the detenus dated 10.08.2011 have been received by the Commissioner of Police, viz., the detaining authority on 11.08.2011, which cannot be denied and moreover, the learned Public Prosecutor is unable to controvert the same, the non-consideration of the representation is certainly fatal to the impugned orders of detention. We do not want to express anything on any other ground raised by both sides except on this ground which is the fundamental right of life available to the detenus. 12. The Habeas Corpus petitions are allowed, setting aside the impugned detention orders passed by the first respondent in Detention Order No.214/2011 and second respondent in Detention Order No.215/2011 dated 08.08.2011 by holding that the continuation of detention is invalid and unconstitutional. The detenues, namely B..Ranganathan in HCP.No.1133 of 2011 and T.C.Venkatesh @ Gowrishankar in HCP.No.1134 of 2011 who are now confined at Central Prison, Vellore are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case.