( 1 ) THESE two are petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus quashing the two orders dated 12-3-1991 passed by the 2nd respondent and for setting one M. Ramulu (husband of the petitioner in W. P. 4534/91) and another M. Vasudev (husband of the petitioner in W. P. 4555/91) at liberty forthwith. In exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) the 2nd respondent directed detention of two detenus in the Central Prison, Hyderabad. Pursuant thereto, both the detenus were arrested and lodged in the Central Prison.

( 2 ) THE two detention orders reveal that the two detenus, who are partners and transport contractors of Indian Oil Corporation and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, had indulged in large scale clandestine business in petroleum products by illegally decanting diesel meant for various consignees from their tankers by unscrewing the nuts and bolts of the lids of the tankers without tampering the seals in a scheduled place at Balanagar, Hyderabad, on 31-7-1990 and also on previous occasions and sold the decanted diesel by despatching it in their empty tankers intended for transportation of furnace oil so as to make it believe as light diesel oil for pecuniary gain without any license under the A. P. Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) Order, 1980 and thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of diesel, a commodity essential to the community. It is with a view to prevent them from further acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity essential to the community, the 2nd respondent invoked the powers under Section 3 of the Act and directed their detention in prison.

( 3 ) MR. B. Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sought to assail the continuance of detention of the two detenus on more than one count, but in the view are taking, we confine ourselves to the prime contention, viz. , the non-consideration of the case of the detenus in the light of S. 14 (1) of the Act whether or not to revoke or modify the orders of detention by the Central Government resulted in contravention of the rule of procedural fairness culminating in violation of Art. 22 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submitted that the Central Government (3rd respondent) did not file any counter, though more than two months have elapsed from the date of filing of these two writ petitions, stating that the cases of the detenus were considered for purposes of revocation or modification of the orders of detention and therefore the assertion of the petitioners that the cases were not considered remains uncontroverted so as to form basis for the contention noted supra. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General submitted that the Central Government was apprised of the fact of detention of the two detenus by the State Government through the letter dt. 18-3-1991 within the stipulated time enclosing thereto the grounds of detention and other documents having bearing on the necessity for passing and approving the orders of detention as envisaged by S. 3 (4) of the Act. He contended that it is not necessary for the Central Government to satisfy this Court that the cases of the detenus were considered for revocation or modification of the orders of detention on receipt of the report u/s. 3 (4) of the Act from the State Government and that non-consideration of their cases does not give rise to infringement of any right under Art. 22 of the Constitution to call for intervention by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. According to the learned Advocate-General, S. 14 (1) of the Act clothes the Central Government with the power to revoke or modify the orders of detention and non-exercise of that power does not render the ord