S.Jagadeesan, J.: The petitioner is the detenu, who had been detained as a bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 pursuant to the impugned order of detention dated 2.2.1999 passed by the District Magistrate and Collector, Vellore District the first respondent herein. 2. The petitioner had involved in four adverse cases as extracted in the grounds of detention. The ground case is also one attracting Secs.4(1) (b) and 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 read with Sec.328 of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the conduct of the detenu, the sponsoring authority has sent a proposal for his preventive detention, The detaining Authority also, after satisfying himself the need for such detention of the petitioner herein, arrived at the subjective satisfaction on the available material before him and passed the impugned order of detention. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to assail the order of detention mainly on two grounds. One is that the representation sent by the wife of the detenu on 26.2.1999 has not yet been disposed of. The other ground is that for the meeting of the Advisory Board to be held on 17.3.1999, the petitioner was informed on 12.3.1999, 13.3.1999 and 14.3.1999, being Saturday and Sunday, are holidays. The petitioner has not been provided with sufficient time to prepare for himself or to have the assistance of his friend or family members to represent his case before the Advisory Board in a proper and effective manner. 4. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, it is admitted by him that the wife of the detenu has sent the representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu. In the grounds of detention, in paragraph 6, the detenu had been specifically informed that he has right to make the representation in writing against the order in which he has been kept under detention and if he wishes to make such a representation. He should address it to the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and forward it through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Vellore. 5. From the instructions given to the detenu, it is clear that the detenu has a right to make the representation addressed to the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, who is the appropriate authority to consider and dispose of the representation. 5. From the instructions given to the detenu, it is clear that the detenu has a right to make the representation addressed to the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, who is the appropriate authority to consider and dispose of the representation. When the petitioner is not in a position to send the representation, any other person on his behalf can forward the representation. Those who want to make the representation on behalf of the detenu, must also forward such a representation only to the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department for the consideration and disposal of the same. In fact, for sending of the representation to various authorities, who have no role to play either in the consideration or disposal of the same, we of late found that this practice is adopted to raise the plea of delay in the disposal of the representation. When appropriate instructions have been given to the detenu that if he wants to make any representation, he can forward it to the particular authority, it is not open either to the detenu or to the person acting on his behalf to forward such a representation to any other authority except the authority mentioned in the grounds of detention. When the representation has been forwarded to the authority, who was no role to play, we cannot expect him to go through the representation and then forward it to the appropriate authority, which may add to the strain of the official functions of the authority, who had been addressed to. When the petitioner’s personal freedom had been restricted, certain amount of carefulness is expected from the detenu as well as the person acts on his behalf to get the speedy relief and as such. There is an obligation on the part of the detenu as well as the person acts on his behalf to forward such a representation only to the specified authority for consideration and disposal. The parties adopt a delay in tactics method by addressing to various authorities, who has nothing to do in the consideration and disposal of the representation and such a representation deserves no merits. 6. The parties adopt a delay in tactics method by addressing to various authorities, who has nothing to do in the consideration and disposal of the representation and such a representation deserves no merits. 6. In this case, the Additional Public Prosecutor represent that the Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department had not at all received the representation and as such, we are of the opinion that the non-disposal of the representation forwarded by the detenu’s wife to a non concerned official cannot vitiate the order of detention. 7. So far as the second ground of attack is concerned, the fact remains that the petitioner had been informed by the telex message on 12.3.1999 in the forenoon and the detailed message in the afternoon regarding the meeting of the Advisory Board that the meeting would be held on 17.3.1999. In between that, there are four days available to the detenu to make preparations in order to submit the representation before the Advisory Board. The contention of the learned counsel that 13.3.1999 and 14.3.1999, being Saturday and Sunday, are holidays, cannot be accepted. For postal authorities, 13.3.1999, being Saturday, is the working day. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had made any attempt either on 12.3.1999 or on 13.3.1999 to despatch the communication to his friend or to the family members in order to make preparation for the effective representation before the Advisory Board. If any communication had been despatched on 13.3.1999, his family members on his friend could have received the same on 15.3.1999 or 16.3.1999 and made available before the Advisory Board. The further admission made by the learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has asked for time before the Advisory Board to have the assistance of his friend makes it clear that within the four days i.e., between 12.3.1999 and 17.3.1999 the petitioner did not make any attempt to contact his friend or his family members. He cannot take advantage of his own negligence and we are of the opinion that the petitioner had sufficient time to make arrangements to have the communication with his friend or with his relatives and the petitioner wilfully neglected to utilise the opportunity. Hence, there is no merit in this contention also. 8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.