Judgment 1. The petitioner detenu has been detained, in pursuance of the order dated 20.7.1997, passed by the second respondent in B.D.F.G.I.S.No.69/ 97, with a view to preventing the petitioner from indulging in activities which would be prejudi-cial to the public order and public health. 2. The petitioner alleges that due to the influence of his brother Ramasamy, who is President of the local panchayat, he had been detained and by his activities, no public health or public order is affected. It is alleged that there is no evidence evidence or ground to prove that the petitioner is a bootlegger. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation made by the petitioner to the Governor on 22.9.1997 has not been properly considered. He also submitted that the representation of the petitioner was rejected mechanically. He relied on the decision in Thenmozhi v. Secretary to Govern-merit Thenmozhi v. Secretary to Govern-merit, (1996)2 L. W. (Crl.) 592 in support of his contentions. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent whereby the allegations contained in the affidavit of the petitioner, have been denied. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited the attention of this Court that the petitioner detenue had been convicted and punished in several cases. He submitted that the decision relied on by the counsel for petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. He further submitted that the representation of the detenue was considered in time and that the detention order so passed, is just, legal and valid. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and perused the material on record. It is well-settled that this Court will not sit over the order of the detaining authority and it has to consider as to whether the materials available were sufficient for making the order of detention. The only question that has to be considered by this Court is whether the materials were relevant for matters to be decided by the detaining authority and whether they were promixate in time. It is also settled that the satisfaction of the detaining authority should be subjective one and not of objective one. Therefore, if the detention order shows material to prove the subjective satisfaction on the part of the authority concerned, then those court should not interfere. 5. It is also settled that the satisfaction of the detaining authority should be subjective one and not of objective one. Therefore, if the detention order shows material to prove the subjective satisfaction on the part of the authority concerned, then those court should not interfere. 5. So considering the respective arguments of the learned counsel on both sides, and the material facts on record, subjective satisfaction on the part of the authority concerned is to be seen. For that, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show any ground. As such, the order of detention is to be up held. 6. So far as the decision relied on by the learned counsel, for the petitioner is concerned, it will not be helpful to the petitioner herein on the facts and circumstances of the case. In that case, it could be seen that it was a case of consumption of i.e., arrack and medical certificate was issued without examining the person and a conclusion had been arrived that the said person consumed i.d arrack mixed with poisonous substance. Whereas in the present case, the petitioner was having mere possession. 7. On the (acts and circumstances of the case on hand, the question remains to be seen is whether the representation of the petitioner was decided in time or not. As could be seen from the counter-affidavit, the representation of the petitioner dated 22.9.1997, was received by the detaining authority on 29.9.1997 and came to be decided on 3.10.1997, having 2.10.1997 as holiday. So it cannot be said that it was decided with non-application of mind and delay. On this ground, the petition has to fail. 8. For the reasons stated above, the H.C.P. is dismissed.