Judgment :- P.Sathasivam,J. The petitioner who was detained as a "Goonda" under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 15.2.2005, challenges the same in this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2. After taking us through the grounds of the petition and of all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:- (i) There is a delay in disposal of the representation which vitiates the ultimate order of detention; (ii) There is variation in the English version and Tamil version which prevented him from making an effective representation; and (iii)A reading of Paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention in the Tamil version supplied to the detenu show that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind. 3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, met all the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. As regards delay in considering the representation, Learned Government Advocate stated that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 16.3.2005, remarks were called for on 17.3.2005 and remarks were received on 23.3.2005. In between 17.32005 and 23.3.2005, 19.3.2005 and 20.3.205 were Saturday and Sunday respectively. Thereafter the file was submitted on 24.3.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 28.3.2005. It is brought to our notice that 25.3.2005, 26.3.2005 and 27.3.2005 were holidays. The representation was rejected and rejection letter was prepared on 30.3.2005 and the same was served to the detenu on 1.4.2005. A perusal of these particulars show that there is no undue delay as claimed by the petitioner and hence the first contention is liable to be rejected. 5. Coming to the discrepancy in the Tamil version of certain documents supplied to the detenu, particularly the time of occurrence mentioned in the copy of FIR, on verification of those relevant pages, namely Page Nos.56,57 and 58, we are satisfied that except in one place, in all other places/documents, the time of occurrence has been correctly mentioned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the remand order dated 7.2.2005, which finds place at page 95 of the booklet, would contend that in the absence of any petition or reference in the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of non application of mind. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the remand order dated 7.2.2005, which finds place at page 95 of the booklet, would contend that in the absence of any petition or reference in the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside on the ground of non application of mind. As rightly pointed by the learned Government Advocate in Paragraph No. 3 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has specifically referred to the remand order dated 7.2.2005 issued by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and he was fully aware of the complaint made by him before the said authority. In such circumstances, the said contention is also liable to be rejected. 7. Coming to the claim that a reading of Tamil version of Paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention show that the Detaining Authority has not considered the "imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail", we have perused Paragraph No.4, both in English and Tamil versions. It is clear that the Detaining Authority considered the relevant fact that at the time of passing of the Detention Order, the detenu was in remand and he also moved the Bail Petition before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.1282 of 2005 and the same was pending. In those circumstances, considering the fact that in similar cases, bails are being granted by the Sessions Court and High Court after lapse of some time and also taking note of the fact that in view of the pendency of the bail petition, there is "imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail", the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned order of detention. We do not find any defect even in the Tamil version of the same portion as claimed by the counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this contention is also liable to be rejected. 8. In the light of our discussion, we do not find any ground for interference. Accordingly, this Hebeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.