The detention order can be deemed infirm if there is a delay in rejecting the representation and a lack of proper service of the rejection order. Anticipation of future activities without considering pending bail applications can be premature and without basis.

M. Chockalingam, J.

Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent made in Cr.M.P.No.04/B.M/2009 (E4) dated 22. 2009, whereby the son of the petitioner namely Lal @ Srilal was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 branding him as a black marketeer.

2. The affidavit in support of the petition along with all the materials including the order under challenge are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3. Concededly, the order under challenge came to be passed on 22. 2009 pursuant to the registration of three adverse cases namely (1) Pollachi Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Crime No.778/2008 dated 211. 2008, under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 for alleged possession of 90 bags of PDS boiled rice; (2) Pollachi Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Crime No.816/2008 dated 212. 2008 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 for alleged possession of 2 bags of PDS rice; and (3) Pollachi Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Crime No.24/2009 dated 11. 2009 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 for alleged possession of 119 bags of PDS boiled rice and 55 bags of PDS raw rice and also a ground case in Pollachi Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department Crime No.45/2009 under Sec.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 read with 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act 1955 stating that on 2. 2009 at about 1600 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies Criminal Investigation Department, Pollachi Unit, when he was engaged in raid in detecting hoarding and smuggling of essential commodities in Gopalapuram area, found the detenu in possession of 40 bags of PDS rice each weighing 50 kg. and it was actually smuggled with the intention to make wrongful gain by selling at Kerala State, and the PDS rice was seized under a mahazar, and he was also arrested, and the case came to be registered in the above crime number. All materials in respect of those cases were placed before the detaining authority along with the recommendation. On scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority was satisfied that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the public distribution system, and hence in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, an order of detention has got to be made under the provisions of the Act, and accordingly made the order which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

4. The learned Counsel while advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner raised the following two points.

.(i) The order under challenge came to be passed on 22. 2009. A representation was made on 13. 2009 to the Central Government, and the same was rejected on 15. 2009 after a delay of two months. Only an intimation was served on him and not the order of rejection. Thus the order came to be passed not only with a delay of two months, but also the detenu was served with only the decision of rejection and not an order of rejection. Thus the detenu was unable to understand whether the representation was rejected after giving due consideration or not, and under the circumstances it can be well stated that the detenu was not given opportunity of understanding what was actually the order made against him.

.(a) The learned Counsel in support of his contention relied on a decision of the Kerala High Court reported in 2004 CRI. L.J. 3797 (Lekha Nandakumar V. Jt. Secy. To G.O.I., Ministry Of Finance).

.(ii) As far as three adverse cases and one ground case are concerned, he filed bail applications in all the cases and all were pending. At that time, even before the results of the bail applications are made known, the authority even without observing whether there was r