ORDER S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the detenu, challenging the order of detention passed by the second respondent, by his proceedings in Cr.M.P. No. 10/2013 dated 20.08.2013, detaining him as a "Drug Offender" under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, [for brevity "the Act"]. Now, he has been lodged at Central Prison, Madurai. 2. It is seen that there are three adverse cases and one ground case pending as against the detenu. The adverse cases are as under: a) Trichy Customs C.I.U. Section O.R. No. 01/2010 registered under Sections 8(C) r/w 20, 25, 28, 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. b) Crime No. 108 of 2012 in Sedapatti Police Station, registered under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. c) Crime No. 179 of 2012 in Sedapatti Police Station, registered under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 3. All the aforesaid adverse cases are pending for trial, however, there no previous conviction against the petitioner/detenu. The ground case relates to Crime No. 58 of 2013 registered under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 25 of N.D.P.S. Act, by the Madurai NIB CID Unit. As per the prosecution case, the detenu was found in possession of 6 Kgs. of Ganja. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the typed set of papers and submitted that the respondents have not followed the mandatory provisions that are available to safeguard the fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 19, 21 and22(5) of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Rajeswari v. The Secretary to Government, reported in (2006) 1 MLJ (Crl.) 628, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held in paragraph-6 of the order as under: 6. It is clear that the mother of the detenu highlighted that her son has not involved in any case and out of vengeance, false cases have been foisted against him by the police. We are not saying that there is truth in the said allegation, however, in view of assertion in the representation addressed to the Detaining authority, as said earlier, it is but proper on his part to forward it to the Government for consideration. We are not saying that there is truth in the said allegation, however, in view of assertion in the representation addressed to the Detaining authority, as said earlier, it is but proper on his part to forward it to the Government for consideration. In as much as the District Collector/District Magistrate failed to forward the same to the Government, we hold that the detenu is prejudiced by the act of the Detaining authority in not considering the representation of his mother. Though learned Government advocate contended that the said representation was handed over by the mother of the detenu, among several other persons, in view of the fact that the same has been received by the person on behalf of the District Collector and in view of the specific reference made therein relating to detention order, as said earlier, it is the duty of the District Collector to forward it to the Government for necessary action. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kasthuri v. District Collector and District Magistrate, reported in (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 248, and it is seen that the ratio laid down is based on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the decision reported in (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl.) 248, one of us is a party (S. Tamilvanan, J.). 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that neither the adverse case, nor the ground case was registered under any provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1910 or the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930 and he drew the attention of this Court to Page No. 4 of the impugned order, which reads as under: His activities are against the provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1910 and the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither the adverse case nor the ground case was registered under the provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1910 or the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930. The cases were admittedly registered only under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Therefore, the above words have been unnecessarily incorporated in the detention order by the second respondent. 9. The detention order was passed admittedly on 20.08.2013 and forwarded to the Government and the Government approved the detention order on 27.08.2013. The cases were admittedly registered only under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Therefore, the above words have been unnecessarily incorporated in the detention order by the second respondent. 9. The detention order was passed admittedly on 20.08.2013 and forwarded to the Government and the Government approved the detention order on 27.08.2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detenu had submitted his representation to the second respondent on 24.08.2013, however the same was rejected on 02.09.2013 after the approval of the order by the Government of Tamil Nadu, hence the order of rejection is against law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the approval, the second respondent should have forwarded the representation to the Government, but without forwarding the same, he simply rejected the representation made by the petitioner, which shows the non-application of mind of the detaining authority, which vitiates the detention order. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the representation was given by the petitioner/detenu on 27.08.2013 before the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation was sent on 24.08.2013 whereas the learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the representation submitted by the petitioner/detenu, wherein, he has put the date as 27.08.2013 nearby his signature and the typed date 24.08.2013 was rounded up. There is no other proof from the petitioner/detenu to show that the representation was sent on 24.08.2013. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the representation was made only on 27.08.2013, however, it makes no difference in deciding this Habeas Corpus Petition. Admittedly, after the approval of the detention order by Government of Tamil Nadu on 27.08.2013, the rejection order has been passed by the second respondent herein. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced the order passed by the second respondent, wherein the date is stated as 02.09.2013. Therefore, it is clear that the second respondent has rejected the representation given by the petitioner/detenu only on 02.09.2013, after the approval by the Government on 27.08.2013. After the approval given by the Government, the second respondent is not empowered to pass any order. However, it being a preventive detention order, the second respondent should have forwarded the representation to the Government, without rejecting the representation made by the petitioner/detenu. It shows only the non-application of mind. After the approval given by the Government, the second respondent is not empowered to pass any order. However, it being a preventive detention order, the second respondent should have forwarded the representation to the Government, without rejecting the representation made by the petitioner/detenu. It shows only the non-application of mind. It is well settled that the personal liberty of an individual should not be tampered with except as per Article 21 of the Constitution under procedure established under law. Therefore, we are of the view that the detention order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings Cr.M.P. No. 10/2013 dated 20.08.2013 is quashed. The detenu Ravichandran alias Chandran, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.