Judgment :- Arunachalam, J. We strongly feel that there must be some introspection by the State Government when they want to enforce preventive law. Preventive orders cannot be passed as though it is a mere ritual akin to something of a game played in the playground. Detenu herein is a goonda. The object of preventively detaining him is to protect public order. If that is the sole object, we are unable to understand why laxity is exhibited by the State Government in disposing of the representation of the detenu. Is it the attitude of the State Government that it will be sufficient if some of these persons are detained for a short period, knowing fully well that because of the infirmities created by them, the detenus are bound to succeed before Court? A casual passing of preventive orders atleast with the probable knowledge that they are bound to be set aside can only exhibit a mockery of application of preventive law. The public at large are bound to scorn and frown at the way in which preventive orders are passed purely with a view to have them ultimately struck down. Everyday, we are dealing with dozens of preventive cases of which atleast ninety per cent of them get quashed purely on account of the indifference and recklessness exhibited either by the State Government or its authorities. Inspite of our observations in a few cases, situation does not appear to have improved. On the contrary, we find more and more inaction. Authorities either in Collectorates or in the State Secretariat run a race each vying with each other to commit more and more of blunders. It looks as though both are the winners while the public are the sufferers. 2. Now, let us turn to facts in this habeas corpus petition. Petitioner Velusamy alias Velan has been detained as a goonda in pursuance of an order dated 23. 1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention indicate that the detenu had come to adverse notice atleast on six earlier occasions,during the period ranging between 4. 1990 and 3. 1993. The grounds of detention indicate that the detenu had come to adverse notice atleast on six earlier occasions,during the period ranging between 4. 1990 and 3. 1993. It is under such a heritage, the detenu found himself involved in the ground occurrence on 13. 1993 at or about 7.00 p.m. That the ground occurrence certainly relates to a public problem cannot be disputed. Still, we are unable to understand as to how the State Government had allowed the representation of the detenu to be left unattended for over a month and a half. 3. Atleast in this case, we cannot blame the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, for he seems to have acted fairly promptly. Probably this witness is because of his awareness of the detenu being a troublesome goonda. Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore was in receipt of the representation of the detenu dated 13. 1993 on 23. 1993. On the same day, he had called for parawar remarks from the sponsoring authorities. 23. 1993 and 23. 1993 were holidays. On 30.3.1993 parawar remarks were received by the Commissioner of Police, who despatched it to the State Government on 33. 1993, to be received by the latter on 4. 1993. The representation of the detenu had received continuous consideration at the office of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore. This appears to be a welcome change, when we have been often noticing several District Collectors in the State sleeping over this sort of representations, for weeks together. Atleast, it appears that the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, was aware of his responsibility in dealing with promptitude the representation of the detenu. 4. Compared to the duty consciousness of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, let us spotlight the reckless negligence exhibited at the State Secretariat. Parawar remarks which were received on 4. 1993 were put up before the authority concerned for action only on 15. 1993. State Government has not been able to offer any explanation as to why there was no movement of the file between 4. 1993 and 15. 1993. The State Government cannot contend that it was not aware of the consistent law, that representation of the detenus should be expeditiously and continuously considered and if there is any delay, it ought to be satisfactorily explained. Not only there has been delay, but also no explanation is sought to be offered. 1993 and 15. 1993. The State Government cannot contend that it was not aware of the consistent law, that representation of the detenus should be expeditiously and continuously considered and if there is any delay, it ought to be satisfactorily explained. Not only there has been delay, but also no explanation is sought to be offered. We are unable to understand if some class of detenus get favoured treatment at one or other of the levels at which their representations are being disposed of. Hope it is not so. The State as well as the authorities working under it must realise that all are servants of the public and in interests of the public in general will have to be preserved by all agencies. We are in deep anguish, when in law we are constrained to set aside several preventive orders solely due to the carelessness and supine inaction exhibited either at State level or at the district level. We hope that this will not be one of the many cases in which we bring to the notice of the State Government the serious infirmities, but still no follow-up action is taken. The disposal of this habeas corpus petition, we firmly believe, will give a shake-up at every level, so that blunders of this nature are not repeated in future. 5. The detenu is bound to succeed on this single, but vital ground. Impugned order of detention shall stand set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required. This habeas corpus petition is allowed.