Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. The petitioner challenges a detention order passed against him dated 4-9-1998 by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Pudukottai District, detailing him under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 with a view to preventing him from acting prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The order has been executed on the next day i.e. on 5-9-1998. Amongst the grounds relied on it is suggested that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam, came to know from a complaint filed by the Village Administrative Officer on 5-8-1998 that four persons were found in a suspicious manner near the thorny shrubs in front of Pillaiyar temple in south Pudukudi Village, Pudukottai District. These four persons were Kannan, Murugan, Meiyappan (the petitioner herein) and Balasundaram alias Sundaram. According to this report, the concerned Police Officer came to know that these persons were engaged in supplying the essential commodities viz., diesel, engine oil, medicine, etc. clandestinely to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealum of Sri Lanka. The report of the said Village Administrative Officer was recorded in the General Diary and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam, with his police party, proceeded to south Pudukudi village to arrest the aforesaid suspected persons. On seeing the police duty, they tried to espace. However, the Sub-Inspector of Police managed and tried to apprehend them with the assistance of the Police personnel. One of them, viz. Meiyappan (the petitioner herein) took out a bomb which was hidden in his hip and shouted that if anybody tried to apprehend them, they all would be burnt. The members of the General Public, who were witnessing the scene, ran away from the spot and fled, because of fear. However, all these persons were overpowered by the police party and it was found that they were in possession of gelatine bombs with wick and cigar lighter. A further enquiry was made wherein, Meiyappan, the petitioner herein, gave a confessional statement owning up the responsibilities. Amongst the other reasons, it is pointed out that the further investigation disclosed that since there was no profit in the fishing profession, these four persons including Meiyappan had, In order to amass huge money, started supplying diesel, petrol and medicines to the L.T.T.E. Militants of Sri Lanka which fetched huge gains to them. Amongst the other reasons, it is pointed out that the further investigation disclosed that since there was no profit in the fishing profession, these four persons including Meiyappan had, In order to amass huge money, started supplying diesel, petrol and medicines to the L.T.T.E. Militants of Sri Lanka which fetched huge gains to them. Amongst the grounds, it is also pointed out that on confession, the Sub-Inspector of Police seized five litres of engine oil, 75 litres of diesel, life saving drugs, 16 bottles of saline solution, disposable syringes, bandage clothes, plaster cotton rolls as also explosives viz. 44 numbers of gelatine sticks, 50 Numbers of Electric Detonators, 10 pieces of safety fuse and 46 Numbers of ordinary (Non-electrical) detonators each measuring about 3.5 cms. which were packed in three card board boxes. It has also been mentioned that one of these four persons viz., Balasundaram alias Sundaram was previously involved in the clandestine activities for which a case has been also registered for offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is then mentioned that these four persons were in the habit of supplying and helping the illegal activities of the L.T.T.E. of Sri Lanka. It appears from the grounds that they were all arrested and were put before the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, who remanded them and eventually all these persons were put in the Central Prison Tiruchirappalli. It has also come with the grounds that the explosives were sent for the examination and for defusing to Tamil Nadu Commando School. It is more or less on this basis that the orders of detention were passed against the four persons. We are concerned with the petitioner Meiyappan in this petition. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised several points in support of the Petition and contended that firstly, there has been delay in consideration of the representation dated 6-10-1998 and on that count, the right of the petitioner under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been defeated. His second submission is to the effect that though there is a reference to a General Diary of the concerned Police Station being filled up before the alleged raid took place, the extract of the said Diary was not placed before the detaining authority, and thus, the detaining authority has passed the order without looking into the said General Diary entry. The learned Counsel further urged that though in his representation, the said General Diary was sought for, the copy has not been supplied to the detenu and as such, the detenu has suffered inasmuch as he has not been able to take an effective representation to suggest that there was, in fact, nothing in the General Diary and the whole First Information Report was a foisted and false one. 3. As against this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is no question of any delay in the consideration of the representation. As regards the contention of non-supply of copy of the entry made in the General Diary, the learned Public Prosecutor suggests that that document was not placed before the detaining authority and was not 'a relied on document' at all and the reference to that document is merely a casual reference to describe the activity prior to the First Information Report. According to the Public Prosecutor, nothing would depend upon the said extract in the General Diary of the Police Station and, therefore, there was no necessity whatsoever to supply the copy of the accused. 4. Considering the first contention, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the representation dated 6-10-1998 reached the Government on 9-10-1998 and the Government called for the para-wise remarks from the detaining authority on 12-10-1998 It is pointed out that 10th and 11th Oct. 1998 were the holidays on account Saturday and Sunday. The said parawise comments were received back by the Government on 13-10-1998 with the replies by the detaining authority. Those comments and the papers were taken into consideration by the Government and its various authorities on 13th, 14th and 15th of Oct. 1998, more particularly, the comments were considered by the Under Secretary on 14-10-1998 and by the Deputy Secretary on 15-10-1998. It is then pointed out that 17th, 18th and 19th of October were holidays on account of Deepavali. Therefore, the Secretary considered the comments on 20th of October and forwarded his comments along with the notes to the Honourable Minister on the same day. The Honourable Minister rejected the representation on 21-10-1998 and the detenu was informed of the rejection on 22-10-1998. It was communicated ultimately to the detenu on 24-10-1998. In view of this scrupulous time table, we do not think that any complaint can be made of the delay in consideration of the representation. The Honourable Minister rejected the representation on 21-10-1998 and the detenu was informed of the rejection on 22-10-1998. It was communicated ultimately to the detenu on 24-10-1998. In view of this scrupulous time table, we do not think that any complaint can be made of the delay in consideration of the representation. This is the only point urged on account of delay in representation by the State Government. No other point has been argued before us as regards the aspect of delay. 5. The learned Counsel, however, very strenuously urged before us that the General Diary should have been considered by the detaining authority, as the detaining authority has made a reference thereto. Our attention was invited to the contention in paragraph 2, where it is stated as under : "The Village Administrative Officer concluded his complaint stating that all the four persons who belong to Kattumavadi and Kottaipattinam had no business in that place and suspected that they were trying to transport something to the L.T.T.E. Militants at Sri Lanka and hence, the Village Administrative Officer requested to take appropriate action against them. The above facts were recorded in the General Diary of the Kottaipattinam Police Station by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam with his Police party and the Village Administrative Officer and his Village Assistant proceeded to South Pudukudi village to arrest the above suspected persons." We have deliberately extracted the grounds in order to show that the reference to the General Diary is only by way of supplemental fact. It is only in order to show that the police were activities by the Village Administrative Officer by complaining in writing and that it is in furtherance of that complaint, the police authorities have started from the Police Station. The entries in the General Diary are only suggestive of the movements made by the Police Officers at that Police Station. Once the complaint made by the Village Administrative Officer on 5-8-1998 is available, it will be futile to insist upon the entry in the General Diary, because that merely recorded the movement of the Police Officers who moved out to conduct the raid. Once the complaint made by the Village Administrative Officer on 5-8-1998 is available, it will be futile to insist upon the entry in the General Diary, because that merely recorded the movement of the Police Officers who moved out to conduct the raid. Probably, the mention has been made to the General Diary only in order to suggest that the arrest of the concerned persons is not a chance arrest, but in pursuance of the specific complaint made against them by the Village Administrative Officer. In the wake of the complaint, the insistence of the detenu for the entry becomes meaningless, particularly because the reference to the General Diary has come only by way of a supplemental fact. That apart, the copy of the F.I.R. having been supplied to the detenu, there would be really no necessity to supply the copy of the entry made in the General Diary to the detenu. It will also be interesting to see as to whether it is essential for the detaining authority to consider the entry in the General Diary. Really speaking, that is not necessary for us to see. If the detaining authority was satisfied on the basis of the material including the complaint before him and the further documents suggesting the seizure of number of articles including the explosives, medicines and other articles, it will not be for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned order of the detaining authority. We do not find anything amiss. If the detaining authority has not considered the said entry and further, if the copy of the said entry has not been supplied to the detenu, in our opinion, there is hardly any relevance to the said entry. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor brought to our attention the off-quoted remarks by the Apex Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1640 : (1991 Cri LJ 2058), wherein the Apex Court has approved the decision by the Bombay High Court and held as under :- "It is not sufficient to say that the detenus were not supplied the copies of the documents in time on demand but it must further be shown that the non-supply has impaired the detenu's right to make an effective and purposeful representation. Demand of any or every document, however irrelevant it may be for the concerned detenu, merely on the ground that there is a reference thereto in the grounds of detention cannot vitiate an otherwise legal detention order. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this behalf but what is essential is that the detenu must show that the failure to supply the documents before the meeting of the Advisory Board had impaired or prejudiced his right, however slight or insignificant it may be. In the present case, except stating that the documents were not supplied before the meeting of the Advisory Board, there is no pleading that it had resulted in the impairment of his right nor could counsel for the petitioners point out any such prejudice." 7. The situation is no different in the present matter. The petitioner has not been able to show as to what kind of prejudice was suffered by the petitioner in his not being able to get the copy of the General Diary entry. In fact, we find that the reference to General Diary entry is innocuous and causal and supplementary to the main fact of a complaint having been received from the Village Administrative Officer against the detenu and three others. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the petition and we dismiss the same. Petition dismissed.