Judgment A. Selvam, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention order passed in No.24/D.O./2014, dated 18.09.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Raja, Son of Karuppaiah and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Ramanathapuram NIB CID Unit 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.150 of 2010, Rameswaram Town Police Station registered under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (ii) Crime No.37 of 2011, Dhanuskodi Police Station registered under Section 5(1)(B) of Foreigners Act Order, 1948 read with Section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 12 of Passport Act, 1948 and Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 22.06.2014, the NIB CID, Ramanathapuram Unit has found the detenu in possession of 1.900 Kgs of ganja and consequently a case has been registered in Crime No.46 of 2014, under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu. 4. The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after considering 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 ultimately branded him as 'Drug Offender' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenu himself as petitioner. 5. Despite of repeated adjournments, counter has not been filed on the side of the respondents. Under the said circumstances, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of on merits. 6. 5. Despite of repeated adjournments, counter has not been filed on the side of the respondents. Under the said circumstances, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of on merits. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the petitioner/detenu a representation has been submitted to the second respondent on 22.09.2014 and another representation has been submitted to the Advisory Board on 24.09.2014 and no information has been received with regard to disposal of those representations and under the said circumstances the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. As stated earlier, inspite of several adjournments, the respondents have not chosen to file counter. Considering the fact that the respondents have not chosen to file counter and also considering the fact that two representations have been submitted on the side of the detenu, this Court is of the view that the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 8. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in No.24/D.O./2014, dated 18.09.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Raja, Son of Karuppaiah at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.