Judgment : N. Dhinakar, J. 1. The Petitioner is the father of the detenu Ganesan and he challenges the order of detention dated 23.2.2002 passed by the first respondent detaining his son Ganesan under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 after he was identified as a ‘Goonda’ since he had come to the adverse notice of the authorities in five adverse cases and that he indulged in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that if he is let to remain at large, he will indulge in such further activities and th at therefore there is a compelling necessity to detain him. 2. We are not extracting in details of the grounds of detention since both sides have agreed that the above Habeas Corpus Petition has to be considered and allowed on the following short ground. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is delay in considering the representation and therefore, the order of detention has to be set aside. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the file. It could be seen from the file that the representation of the detenue dated 2.4.2002 was received by the Government on 3.4.2002 and the remarks of the detaining authority were called on 4.4.2002. Remarks were received on 12.4.2002 and the file was circulated on 17.4.2002 on which date the under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary perused the file and the file submitted to the Minister for Law on 4.5.2002 and the Minister of Law rejected the representation on 7.5.2002 and the same was served on the detenu on 11.5.2002. 5. The dates given above show that though the file was circulated in the Deputy Secretary on 17.4.2002 it was submitted to the Minister for Law only on 4.5.2002. There is no explanation from the side of the respondents for the delay caused in submitting the file to the Minister. 6. In view of the delay, which stands unexplained between 17.4.2002 and 4.5.2002, we feel that the order of detention has to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other cases.