Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu namely Venu, S/o. Rao, before this Hon'ble Court, who is detained as per the order of detention passed by the first respondent in C.O.C. No.04/05 dated 13.04.05 and confined at Central Prison, Trichy, and set him at liberty and further direction to call for the records relating to the above said order and quash the same.) P.Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu by name Venu, challenges the impugned detention order dated 13.04.2005, branding the detenu as 'Bootlegger' as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:- (a) There is improper translation particularly paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention. (b) Even in the reply to the representation of the detenu made prior to the detention order, the Detaining Authority has conveyed his decision to detain the detenu as Bootlegger under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, hence, he predetermined to pass the detention order against the detenu. (c) Though a letter was sent by the Government agreeing to supply certain documents to the detenu, the same were not supplied. (d) Inasmuch as the arrest memo contains the Crime Number even before registration of the FIR, in the absence of proper explanation, the detention order is vitiated. (e) There is variation with regard to the date of occurrence of the ground case both in the English and Tamil version. (f) There is delay in disposal of the representation made by the detenu. 3. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) met all the above contentions by placing relevant records. 4. Coming to the first contention relating to variation in the Tamil translation, particularly paragraph NO.5, we have verified the statement made in paragraph No.5 both in English as well as Tamil version of the detention order. We are satisfied that the phrase "imminent possibility" has been correctly stated in the Tamil version, namely, "epr;rakhd mDTyk; cs;sJ". 4. Coming to the first contention relating to variation in the Tamil translation, particularly paragraph NO.5, we have verified the statement made in paragraph No.5 both in English as well as Tamil version of the detention order. We are satisfied that the phrase "imminent possibility" has been correctly stated in the Tamil version, namely, "epr;rakhd mDTyk; cs;sJ". By reading the entire paragraph of the Tamil version, we are satisfied that there is no variation as claimed by the counsel for petitioner. 5. Coming to the second contention, it is brought to our notice that in the reply (dated 07.04.2005) to the pre-detention representation, the District Magistrate has informed that steps have been taken to detain the detenu under the Preventive Detention Act. By pointing out the same, the counsel submitted that the said information shows the pre-determination on the part of the Detaining Authority. In this regard, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that the Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit as well as required documents even on 30.03.2005, praying the Detaining Authority for taking appropriate steps under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. A perusal of the contents of the affidavit dated 30.03.2005 shows that he not only referred to various aspects but also enclosed the required documents for taking action under Act 14 of 1982. In such circumstances, the observation made in the letter-dated 07.04.2005 by the District Magistrate, who is none else than the Detaining Authority, cannot be faulted with. 6. With regard to the third submission, we have perused the letter of the Government dated 18.05.2005. We are satisfied that the said letter shows that all the required/relevant documents have been supplied and there is no further assurance to supply the documents to the detenu. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected. 7. Coming to the claim that the arrest memo contains Crime Number, it is true that the arrrest Memo contains Cr. No.57 of 2005. It is not in dispute that the detenu was arrested at 12.15 P.M. on 22.03.2005 at Vadapathimangalam, which is 15 Kms. away from the Police Station. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, particularly in ground-j, the deponent has stated as follows:- " The Station House Officer i.e., the Inspector of Police was aware of the next Crime Number and hence it was mentioned in the arrest (memo). away from the Police Station. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, particularly in ground-j, the deponent has stated as follows:- " The Station House Officer i.e., the Inspector of Police was aware of the next Crime Number and hence it was mentioned in the arrest (memo). There is nothing wrong in it. " The above information makes it clear that the Inspector of Police was very well aware of the last Crime Number and after arrest of the detenu, he mentioned the next Crime Number in the arrest memo. In the light of the explanation offered, the said action cannot be faulted with. 8. Coming to the next contention, as per the grounds of detention in English, the ground case occurrence had taken place on 22.03.2005, whereas, in the Tamil version it is mentioned as 28.03.2005, though the correct date is 22.03.2005. Here again, in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, in ground-d, it has been stated, "... But there was a typographical error in the Tamil version stating the date as 28.3.2005. The original date of arrest was 22.3.2005." In the light of the explanation offered by the first respondent, we reject the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Coming to the last contention that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 28.04.2005, remarks were called for on 29.04.2005 and remarks were received on 11.05.2005. Thereafter, the File was submitted on 12.05.2005 and it was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 16.5.2005. Rejection letter was prepared on 18.5.2005 and the same was served to the detenu on 20.05.2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the time taken in submission of the remarks by the Sponsoring authority is on the higher side and the same has not been properly explained. A perusal of the particulars shows that the request to forward the remarks was received from the Government by the Collectorate on 02.05.2005 and thereafter, remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 04.05.2005 and the same were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 10.05.2005. A perusal of the particulars shows that the request to forward the remarks was received from the Government by the Collectorate on 02.05.2005 and thereafter, remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 04.05.2005 and the same were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 10.05.2005. Though the time taken by the Sponsoring Authority appears to be on the higher side, if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are satisfied that there is no undue delay on the part of the Sponsoring Authority in forwarding the remarks to the Collectorate, in turn, forwarding the same to the Government. We are satisfied that there was no let up or undue delay at every stage as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.