Judgment 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in P.B.M.M.S.E.C.Act/C.M.P.No.01/2014, dated 07.10.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as third respondent herein against the detenu by name Rajini, Son of Manohar and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Civil Supply CID, Tiruchirappalli as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases: (i) Crime No.47 of 2009, CSCID Tiruchirappalli, registered under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (ii) Crime No.163 of 2014, CSCID Tiruchirappalli, registered under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 12.09.2014, the Inspector of Police, CSCID, Tiruchirappalli and his police party have found the detenu in possession of 11 bags of PDS rice each weighing about 50 Kgs and consequently a case has been registered in Crime No.466 of 2014 under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Central Act 7 of 1980 against the detenu. 4. The detaining authority viz., third respondent herein after perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and thereby branded him as 'Black Marketeer' and in order to quash the same, the wife of the detenu as petitioner has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 5. On the side of the first respondent a counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that a representation has been received from the detenu on 17.11.2014 and remarks have been called for from the State Government on 19.11.2014 and till then no remarks have been received. 6. In the counter filed on the side of the respondents 2 to 4, it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same. 7. 6. In the counter filed on the side of the respondents 2 to 4, it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that even the representation submitted to the State Government on the side of the detenu has not been disposed of without delay and further on 17.11.2014 a separate representation has been submitted to the Central Government and the same has not been disposed of and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 8. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent has fairly reiterated the averments made in the counter filed on the side of the first respondent. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 has contended that the detaining authority after considering the fact that the detenu is a habitual offender and also after considering the ground case has rightly branded him as Black Marketer by way of passing the impugned detention order and the same does not require any interference. 10. On the side of the respondents 2 to 4, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos.7 to 9, two clear working days are available. 11. As pointed out earlier in the counter filed on the side of the first respondent, it has been clearly stated to the effect that on 17.11.2014, a representation has been submitted to the Central Government. For the purpose of disposing it, remarks have been called for from the State Government on 19.11.2014 and so far no remarks have been submitted. Therefore it is quite clear that the representation submitted by the detenu to the Central Government has not yet been disposed of. Under the said circumstances, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 12. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in P.B.M.M.S.E.C.Act/C.M.P.No.01/2014, dated 07.10.2014 by the third respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Rajini, Son of Manohar at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.