Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order, dated 14.09.2004, in TPDA No.3520 (No.65/BDFGIS/04), passed by the first respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to set the detenu at liberty.) P.K. Misra, J Heard Mr.A.K.Azagarsamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondents. 2. The order of preventive detention, dated 14.09.2004, passed by the first respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 on the allegation that the detenu is a Goonda, has been challenged by the mother of the detenu. Even though several contentions have been raised in support of this petition, it is not necessary to refer all those contentions, as, in our opinion, the contention relating to undue delay in disposal of the representation made by the detenu merits acceptance and this unexplained delay has vitiated the order of detention. 3. It is not disputed that the representation of the detenu was received on 29.09.2004 and thereafter remarks were called on 01.10.2004. However, the remarks were received by the Government from the detaining authority only on 18.10.2004. We have perused the counter filed on behalf of the respondents. Even though in the counter affidavit it is indicated that the representation was received from the Government on 04.10.2004, it is not disputed that the representation was received by the Government on 29.09.2004 and nothing has been explained as to what transpired between 29.09.2004 and 04.10.2004. Except stating about the various dates on which the representation had been received and remarks were called for, no explanation has been furnished in the counter for the undue delay in between 29.09.2004 and 18.10.2004. 4. Law is well settled that since personal liberty of a person is involved in the preventive detention, the authorities concerned are required to deal with the representation with utmost dispatch without any unnecessary delay. In the present case, in the absence of any explanation for the undue delay, we are of the opinion that the order of detention has become vitiated. 5. Accordingly, for the above said reasons, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention, dated 14.09.2004, passed by the first respondent is quashed. In the present case, in the absence of any explanation for the undue delay, we are of the opinion that the order of detention has become vitiated. 5. Accordingly, for the above said reasons, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention, dated 14.09.2004, passed by the first respondent is quashed. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.