K.N. BASHA, J.

1. The petitioner is the detenu and he has come forward with this petition challenging the order of detention dated 10.02.2012 passed by the first respondent branding him as 'Black Marketer'.

2. The first respondent passed the detention order based on the adverse case registered against the petitioner in Crime No.577 of 2011 on the file of the Civil Supplies C.I.D., Chennai, for the contravention of the Section 3(1) of the Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage and Prevention of use in Automobile) Order 2000 r/w Section 7(1)a(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w Section 285 IPC on the allegation of illegal storage of adulterated oil in the tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-23-B-3373.

3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team-V, who has led the special team, alleged to have seen the petitioner/detenu loading oil in the Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-23-B-3373 and ascertained that he is the owner of a firm functioning under the name and style as Balaji Transports. Thereafter, a case was registered in Crime No.441 of 2011 for the above said offences on the file of M-1, Madhavaram Police Station and subsequently, it was transferred to the file of the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Chennai, in Crime No.577 of 2011. The sample oil seized was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Chennai, and ultimately, it is alleged that as per the Chemical Analysis report, the liquids were found to be Diesel admixed with residual oil (used engine oil) and suspended carbaneous substances were detected in the extracts. Accordingly, the said case was under investigation which necessitated the detaining authority, namely, the first respondent to pass the impugned detention order dated 10.02.2012.

4. Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/detenu, though raised several grounds, would mainly contend that the detenu has sent his representation dated 27.02.2012 to both the State Government and the Central Government authorities, but both the authorities have failed to consider the representation and as such, the valuable fundamental right of the detenu has been violated due to the conduct of non-consideration of the representation by the Central Government as well as by the State Government authorities. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/detenu that there is no reply or any order received from the State Government and as per the counter filed by the Central Government, it is stated at paragraph 4 that the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012 was received from the office of the first respondent with a covering letter dated 13.03.2012, but they have not received the English version of detention order and grounds of detention and as such, they have stated that the Central Government was not able to consider the representation of the detenu dated 27.02.2012. It is vehemently contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/detenu that it is mandatory on the part of the State Government as well as the Central Government to consider the representation of the detenu as he raised several grounds apart from seeking the relief of furnishing certain documents and the state Government neither supplied the document sought for nor passed any orders on the representation and the Central Government has come forward with the version that they have not furnished with the required documents in spite of their request made to the State Government and as a result, the fundamental right of the detenu conferred under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that if the State or the Central Government could have considered the representation of the petitioner/detenu, the authorities could have taken note of the grounds raised in the representation and the possibility of revocation of the detention order cannot be ruled out