ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. ON THE GROUND THAT THERE HAS BEEN INORDINATE DELAY IN CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION MADE AGAINST A DETENTION ORDER, A WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT ON CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS PROCESS AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO DELAY AS SUCH AND DISMISSED THE PETITION. NO OTHER POINT WAS URGED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT FOR CONSIDERATION. IN THIS APPEAL AGAINST THAT ORDER IT IS URGED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DUE CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE DELAY IN CONSIDERATION OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY HIM AGAINST THE DETENTION. ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED BY R. BALAKRISHNAN, SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU SETTING OUT THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT OF THE FILE PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE US. IT IS STATED THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT VARIOUS LEVELS BEFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION. IT IS STATED THAT THE MATTER HAD BEEN IN ACTIVE CONSIDERATION THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD IN QUESTION. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN VENMATHI SELVAM V. STATE OF T.N.1 AND CONTENDED THAT THOUGH DELAY AS SUCH MAY NOT BE VERY LONG BUT AS LONG AS IT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED IT BECOMES FATAL INASMUCH AS THE SAME BECOMES UNREASONABLE AND ON THAT BASIS THIS COURT HAD SET ASIDE THE DETENTION ORDER. TO THE SAME EFFECT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN RAJAMMAL V. STATE OF T.N.2 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE MATTER AND ON EXAMINATION OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE STATE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE HAS BEEN DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE REPRESENTATION THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN SOME SMALL DELAY BUT THE SAME HAD BEEN DUE TO THE MOVEMENT OF THE FILE FROM ONE AUTHORITY TO THE OTHER. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER MADE BY THE HIGH COURT. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY.