Judgment :- T.V. Masilamani, J. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the mother of the detenu questioning the order of detention passed by the second respondent-District Magistrate and District Collector, Namakkal dated 21.12.2002 by virtue of powers conferred under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegger, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with G.O.Ms.No.221 Prohibition and Excise Department dated 18.10.2003 issued under Section 3(2) of the Act treating the detenu as a GOONDA. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents and perused the records of the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued at the outset that the delay in the disposal of the representations made by the petitioner as well as the detenu to the Government on 21.1.2003 and 22.1.2003 respectively has not been properly explained for the simple reason that even though the rejection order was passed by the Government on 13.2.2003, the same had been served on the detenu after six days delay only on 18.2.2003. Further he has placed reliance on the decision RAJAMMAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER ( 1999 (I) S.C.C. 417 ) in support of such contention. It is seen from the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.990 of 2002 dated 3.10.2002 in the said case also as in this case exactly six days delay had been there from the date of rejection of the representation to the date of service of such rejection order on the detenu and therefore it is held that such delay of six days is sufficient enough to quash the detention order. Further it is seen there from that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in 1999 (I) S.C.C. 417 has been followed in reiterating the proposition of law on this aspect of the matter. Following the ratio laid down therein, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order herein has to be quashed on this ground alone. 4. Following the ratio laid down therein, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order herein has to be quashed on this ground alone. 4. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority has not applied his mind in passing the impugned order for the reason of the fact that the detenu was already facing charges under Sections 302, 436 I.P.C. in Cr.No.191/2001 Mallasamuthiram police station and his bail application filed in the said case in C.M.P.No.2287 of 2002 was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal on 19.12.2002 and that therefore there was not even a iota of possibility for the detenu to file a bail application for enlarging him on bail. The grounds of detention in paragraph 5 reveals such particulars and in the circumstances found therein, we are of the view that on the date of the impugned order there could not have been any possibility for the detenu coming out on bail. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1992 S.C.C. (CRI) 1 (ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK v. UNION OF INDIA) wherein under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the ratio to the effect that the detaining authority did not apply his mind to this aspect of the matter as there was no imminent possibility for the detenu coming out on bail, as he was already in custody. In this case, it is apparent that the detenu was not only in custody in connection with another crime but his bail application was also dismissed just prior to the passing of the impugned order and therefore we are of the view that it is eminently fit case where the impugned order passed against the detenu by the detaining authority has to be quashed. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.