Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. 1. One Sivalingam (petitioner) is the detenu. Hie detenu, it is said, is a bootlegger. Apart from the ground case, as set out in the grounds of detention, he had come to adverse notice in five other cases. 2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, PuduWcottai District, Pudukkottai (first respondent), in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) clamped upon the detenu, the impugned order of detention, in his proceedings P.D.O.No.16 of 1994 dated 5. 1994, with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health. 3. Mr.N.Doraisamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner would press into service the lone and sole point for consideration, namely, that there was no proper service of the intimation relatable to the place of detention of the detenu, within a reasonable time, from the date of his detention and on this short ground alone, he would say, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr.RRaghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, repel such a submission and produce the relevant file for perusal and consideration of this Court. 5. From a perusal of the file, we are able to find that the communication dated 5. 1994 had emanated from the first respondent-detaining authority informing one Kamatchi, mother of the detenu, as respects the detenu having been lodged at Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli pursuant to the impugned order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. This copy of the communication is stated to have been served upon her by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Arantangi, in the presence of one Natarajan, assistant to the Village Administrative Officer, Arasakulam (East). A thumb impression alleged to be that of Kamatchi in token of service by way of acknowledgement is traceable therein. But, we are able to find that the same had not been identified to be that of the left thumb impression of Kamatchi. Therefore, it cannot at all be taken for granted that there was proper service of the said intimation on the mother of the detenu. 6. Besides the impugned order of detention dated 5. But, we are able to find that the same had not been identified to be that of the left thumb impression of Kamatchi. Therefore, it cannot at all be taken for granted that there was proper service of the said intimation on the mother of the detenu. 6. Besides the impugned order of detention dated 5. 1994 had been executed on the next day, namely, 5. 1994. Even if the said service is construed to be proper, it had been effected only on 15. 1994. In such a situation, it goes without saying that there is unreasonable delay in effecting such service. 7. On this short ground of delay in effecting the said service alone, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside and consequently, the same is set aside. The detenu is therefore ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless and until he is required to be detained in connection with any other case. The habeas corpus petition is thus allowed.