Judgment :- P.Sathasivam, J. The brother of the detenu has filed the above petition. The detenu was detained as bootlegger under Section 3 (1) of the Act 14, 1982. The detention order was passed on 03.12.2003. 2. It is seen that based on two adverse cases that took place on 07.08.2003 and 17.11.2003 and the ground case dated 20.11.2003, the detaining authority after satisfying that the detenu viz., Selvam is habitually committing prohibition offence and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health declaring that he is a "bootlegger" as contemplated under Section 2 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14, 1982, passed an order of detention on 03.12.2003 by detaining him at the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking us through the grounds of detention and other materials has raised the following contentions: 1.Inasmuch as the grounds of detention does not state that the detenu has right to make his representation within twelve days, the detention order vitiates and liable to be quashed. 2.There is inordinate and unexplained delay in considering his representation dated 21.12.2003. 3.Though the brother of the detenu sent a representation on 08.12.2003, the same was neither considered nor forwarded to the Government. 4. The respondents have not filed counter affidavit conveying their stand to this Court. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor based on the records produced, would contend that the grounds of detention satisfy the statutory requirements. There is no inordinate delay as claimed and the representation of the detenu's brother was considered and rejected. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. 6. With reference to the first contention, it is relevant to refer Ground No.6 of the grounds of detention which reads as under: "Thiru.Selvam is informed that this detention order shall not remain in force for more than 12 days after making thereof unless in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government and Thiru.Selvam is also informed that he has a right to make representation in writing against the said detention order to the detaining authority and if any such representation is received by the detaining authority before the approval of the Government, the said representation will be duly considered by the detaining authority. If the detenu wishes to make any written representation to the detaining authority he should address it to the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli and forward it through the Superintendent, Central Prison in which he is confined as expeditiously as possible." 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the unreported decision of this Court in H.C.P.No.2180 of 2000 etc., batch dated 16.04.2001 and H.C.P.No.2107 of 2000 etc., batch dated 19.03.2001 would contend that in the absence of specific intimation/reference that detenu has a right to make representation against the order of detention within twelve days from the date of the order, the detention order vitiates. 8. With reference to the said contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by drawing our attention to Section 8 and Section 3 (3) of the Act 14, 1982 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Santosh Shankar Acharya (JT 2000 (8) SC 374) would contend that what is stated in Ground No.6 of the grounds of detention is in compliance with the statutory provisions. 9. It is useful to refer Section 8 (1) and Section 3(3). Section 8 (1): Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order: When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the ground on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government. Section 3: Power to make orders detaining certain persons: (3) When any order is made under this Section by an Officer mentioned in Sub-section (2), he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and not such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. 10. 10. Reading of the above provisions, particularly Section 8 (1), makes it clear that the authority making the order has to communicate the grounds of detention within five days from the date of detention to the detenu and also afford him earliest opportunity of making a representation. 11. Section 3 (3) makes its obligation on the part of the detaining authority to report the order passed by him to the State Government together with the grounds forthwith. It is also clear that the said order shall remain in force only for twelve days and as soon as the State Government approves the same, the detenu has lost his right to make representation. In other words, it is clear that before the approval of the State Government, the detenu has liberty to make such representation. It is also relevant to refer to the dictum laid down in JT 2000 (8) SC 374 (cited supra), the Honourable Supreme Court while considering Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 concluded as follows: "This being the position, non-communication of the fact to the detenu that he could make a representation to the Detaining Authority so long as the order of detention has not been approved by the State Government in a case where an order of detention is issued by an officer other than the State Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act would constitute an infraction of a valuable right of the detenu under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution and the ratio of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Kamlesh Kumar's case (supra) would apply notwithstanding the fact that in Kamlesh Kumar's case (supra) the Court was dealing with an order of detention issued under the provisions of COFEPOSA." 12. It is clear from the statutory provisions from Act 14/1982 as well as the decision of the Apex Court referred above that the detenu could make a representation to the detaining authority so long as the order of detention has not been approved by the State Government. Once the State Government approves the order of detention, the right of the detenu to make representation vanishes. Once the State Government approves the order of detention, the right of the detenu to make representation vanishes. After going through the Ground No.6 which we have already extracted above, we satisfy that there is no infraction of any of the statutory provisions as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Similar view has been expressed in H.C.P.No.258 of 2003 dated 21.11.2003 by a Division Bench of this Court. The decisions relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to the case on hand. We hold that the grounds of detention i.e. para 6 satisfy the statutory requirements. Accordingly, we reject the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. Coming to the second contention that there is unexplained delay in considering the representation of the petitioner, it is seen that the representation is dated 21.12.2003 and the same was received on 02.01.2004. Thereafter, remarks called for on 05.01.2004 and remarks were received on 21.01.2004. Though remarks were called on 05.01.2004, there is no specific information for taking time till 21.01.2004. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that due to intervening holidays the delay has occasioned. In the absence of specific information by way of counter affidavit explaining the delay, we are unable to accept the reply by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We hold that the delay between 05.01.2004 and 21.01.2004 has not been properly explained. It is further seen that on receipt of the remarks, file was sent to Under Secretary on 22.01.2004 and the same was approved by Deputy Secretary on 22.01.2004 and thereafter, the file sent to Minister for Prohibition and Excise on 23.01.2004 and rejection letter was prepared on 03.02.2004 and the same was sent to Superintendent, Central Prison for service on 04.02.2004. Here again, though the file had been sent to Minister for Prohibition and Excise even on 23.01.2004, there is no explanation for taking time till 03.02.2004. Here again, in the absence of proper explanation by way of counter affidavit or any other material before us, we hold that there was unexplained delay at the hands of Minister for Prohibition and Excise. We accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in considering the representation of the petitioner as explained above has caused prejudice to the detenu and it vitiates the detention order. 14. We accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay in considering the representation of the petitioner as explained above has caused prejudice to the detenu and it vitiates the detention order. 14. Regarding the third contention that the representation dated 08.12.2003 sent by the brother of the detenu was not considered, it is seen from the letter dated 03.02.2004 that the said representation was considered and rejected and the same was communicated to the counsel for the detenu. Accordingly, we do not find any force in the said contention. 15. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned detention order dated 03.12.2003 is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty from the custody forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case or cause. 16. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. No costs.