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 C.M.P.No.04/2014(CS) dated 18.09.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as third respondent herein against the detenu by name Balasingh, Son of Selvaraj and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith. 2. The Inspector of Police, Madurai Civil Supplies C.I.D. 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.69 of 2013, Madurai Civil Supplies C.I.D. Unit, registered under Section 6(2) (3) (4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (ii) Crime No.231 of 2014, Madurai Civil Supplies C.I.D. Unit, registered under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 read with Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 11.09.2014, the sponsoring authority and others have found a Maruthi Omni Van bearing Registration No.TN-09-7218 in front of flour godown, Kalaimagal Street and on seeing the police party, the detenu has tried to escape and the police party have caught hold of him and thereafter a case has been registered in Crime No.382 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 after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and thereby branded him as 'Black Marketeer' by way of passing the impugned detention order 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 respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same. 6. 5. On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu two representations dated 22.09.2014 and 27.09.2014 have been submitted and with regard to representation dated 22.09.2014, rejection order has been received, but so far no communication has been received with regard to representation dated 27.09.2014 and under the said circumstances the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the second representation dated 27.09.2014 has been submitted after lapse of twelve days from the date of passing the detention order and under the said circumstances the detaining authority viz., third respondent herein has submitted the same to the Government. 8. It is seen from paragraph No.2 of the counter filed on the side of the respondents that on 27.09.2014, second representation has been submitted to the detaining authority by the detenu and the same has been sent to the Government. But in the counter it has not been specifically stated as to what has happened to the second representation dated 27.09.2014. Since no mention has been made with regard to fate of second representation dated 27.09.2014 in the counter, it is needless to say that the second representation dated 27.09.2014 has not been disposed of and that itself would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed. 9. In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in C.M.P.No.04/2014(CS), dated 18.09.2014 by the third respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the detenu viz., Balasingh, Son of Selvaraj is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.