Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of respondent No.1, dated 30.08.2004, in Cr.M.P.No.55 of 2004, detaining the petitioner as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, quash the same and set the detenu at liberty now lodged in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.) P. Sathasivam, J. In this petition, the petitioner, who is detained as "GOONDA" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, challenges the order of detention on various grounds. 2. Since the detention order was passed on 30.08.2004 and the period of detention is one year, even according to the counsel for the petitioner, as on date nothing survives for adjudication. In other words, the petition has become infructuous. On this ground, this petition is dismissed. 3. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely Mr.M.Patturajan, that he was asked by the State Legal Services Authority to prepare an affidavit and file a habeas corpus petition questioning the detention order, dated 30.08.2004. It is also brought to our notice, pursuant to the said intimation, according to Mr.Patturajan, he prepared necessary affidavit and sent it to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tiruchirappalli, in the month of February, 2005. It is further informed that since the original affidavit was misplaced, he was asked to submit another affidavit by the Superintendent of Prison to enable him to get signature of the detenu. Thereafter, fresh affidavit was prepared and after getting the signature of the detenu, the above habeas corpus petition came to be filed on 14.06.2005. Because of the delay in challenging the detention order, nearly after nine months, the matter could not be canvassed on merits and the one-year period has come to an end when the case is taken up for hearing. 4. In such circumstances, direction is issued to jail authorities that as and when they receive affidavit or petition on behalf of the detenus, it is but proper that the signatures of the concerned detenus must be obtained without any delay and the same shall be sent to the counsel concerned to enable them to file the same in Court at the appropriate time. This Court hopes and trusts that there will not be any lapse on the part of the jail authorities in getting signature in the affidavits or petitions from the concerned detenus and sending the same to the counsel concerned. 5. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Inspector General of Prisons, Chennai.