Judgment :- (Prayer: - This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in TPDA.No.3487 (No.48/BDFGIS/04) setting aside the order of detention passed therein dated 3.8.2004 directing the Respondents to produce the detenu by name Sivakumar, son of Alagarsamy, before this Hon'ble court, now detained in Central Prison, Madurai and setting him at liberty.) P.K.MISRA, J. 1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2.The order of detention dated 3.8.2004 passed by the 1st respondent has been challenged by the younger brother of the detenu. 3.The order of detention is passed on the allegation that the detenu is a goonda. Even though several contentions had been raised, it is not necessary to refer to all those contentions, as in our opinion, the order of detention is liable to be quashed on the ground that there is no application of mind by the detaining authority regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as it has been held by the Division Bench of this court in Velumurugan @ Velu Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Greater, Chennai-8 and another (2005-1-CTC-577), "3. It is settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions Kamarunnissa Vs. Union of India (1991-1-SCC-128:1991-SCC-Cri-88) and Rivadeneyata Ricardo Agustin Vs. Govt. of Delhi (1994-Supp-1-SCC-597:1994-SCC-Cri-354) that unless there is a clear expression by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention with reference to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail by filing bail application, the detaining authority would not choose to pass the detention order. In order to prevent the detenu from committing the acts, which would be disturbance to public order and public health, the detaining authority shall consider the materials and on the basis of subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail or likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, the detaining authority may pass such an order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. When such an essential requirement, namely, the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is absent, it has to be held that the order of detention is vitiated." 4.Applying the aforesaid yardstick, we find that nothing has been indicated in paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention regarding imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. When such an essential requirement, namely, the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is absent, it has to be held that the order of detention is vitiated." 4.Applying the aforesaid yardstick, we find that nothing has been indicated in paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention regarding imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. 5.We also find that there is a delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The representation was received on 17.9.2004 and it was rejected by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 24.9.2004. Remarks were call for on 8.9.2004 and were received only on 20.9.004. No sufficient explanation has been given for such a delay. In view of the above said reasons, the order of detention is quashed. This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.