THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4509 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the order, dated 21.02.2011, passed by respondent No.1 directing his detention in the process of recovery of arrears of contribution of provident fund. The petitioner contends that except that he was associated with M/s. Indo-Dutch Proteins Limited as Managing Director, he has no stakes in it. He stated that the company is before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.) and every possible step was taken to clear the arrears of contribution. The petitioner further contends that soon after receiving a notice from respondent No.1, he submitted a detailed explanation and without even making a mention to the explanation, much less to the show cause notice, respondent No.1 passed the order of detention. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit trying to justify the order. It is stated that repeated efforts made by him to recover the arrears did not fructify and left with no alternative, the order of detention was passed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Even at the outset, this Court took exception to the order passed by respondent No.1. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why he be not detained. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 21.02.2011 narrating the circumstances and bringing to the notice of respondent No.1 the pendency of the proceedings before B.I.F.R. In case respondent No.1 was not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, he ought to have referred to the same and passed a reasoned order, instead, he passed the impugned order without even making a reference. When the personal liberty of an individual that too the Managing Director of a Company is involved, respondent No.1 ought to have been careful. Respondent No.1 filed a personal affidavit expressing regrets for the course of action he has adopted. It is stated that the order of detention was passed in the matter due to lack of experience. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the incumbent has since been relieved from the Office of the Recovery Officer. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25.04.2011. kdl