Judgment :- N.K. Jain, J. 1. The petitioner Sridhar has been detained as a bootlegger as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 in pursuance of an order of detention dated 1. 1998 passed by the first respondent District Magistrate District Collector, Kancheepuram district, with a view of preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and public order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds in the petition. However, he submits that this petition could be disposed of on legal submission on the sole ground that the representation of the detenu had been considered after abnormal delay, without explaining the same. He relies on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in dated 16. 1998 Pandiyan v. State of TamilNadu & Others, H.C.P.No.1053 of 1997 in support of his case. 3. On the other hand, first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner had made a representation to the Secretary to the Government on 11. 1998, which might have been considered by the Advisory Board on 12. 98. But, no representation was received from the Government so far. 4. Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in this case, representation was made on 11. 1998 and it was received on 11. 1998 and without calling for remarks, the same was sent to the department of law, and ultimately it came to be decided on 22. 1998. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials on record. 6. So far as the legal position is concerned, it is not in dispute that the representation of the detenu, if any, has to be decided as early as possible. In the instant case, nothing has been placed on record to justify the period spent in disposing the representation of the detenu, by the Law Minister. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not able to explain the delay of about 35 days. Even after excluding the holidays, so explained, it could not be accepted as a reasonable one. As such, the order of detention is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. In the result, this H.C.P. is allowed, the impugned order of detention dated 1. Even after excluding the holidays, so explained, it could not be accepted as a reasonable one. As such, the order of detention is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. In the result, this H.C.P. is allowed, the impugned order of detention dated 1. 1998 is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.