P. Sathasivam, J.: The petitioner, who is the uncle of the detenu by name Andakulathan alias Soundarrajan, challenges the detention order branding him as a Bootlegger, as contemplated under 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. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the foremost submitted that there is undue delay in passing the detention order after the ground case which is said to have taken place on 28.11.2004. A verification of the grounds of detention show that ground that ground case had occurred on 28.11.2004. Admittedly, the detention order was passed only on 27.2.2005. 3. It is brought to our notice by the learned Government advocate that the analyst report was received on 6.12.2004 and the doctor has issued certificate on7.12.2004. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the sponsoring authority has submitted his affidavit only on 15.1.2005. When the sponsoring authority is in possession of the analyst report and the doctor’s report even on 6.12.2004 and 7.12.2004, there is no proper explanation for submitting his affidavit till 15.1.2005 for invoking the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Even thereafter, the impugned detention order was passed only on 27.2.2005, i.e. after five weeks of receipt of the affidavit from the sponsoring authority. Though the detaining authority has filed a counter affidavit; there is no explanation for the undue delay in passing the impugned order. 4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on unreported decision of this Court rendered in H.C.P.No.1149 of 1995, dated 13.12.1995. In similar circumstances, after pointing out the unexplained delay between the date of submission of the affidavit by the sponsoring authority and the detention order, the Division Bench of this Court has concluded thus: “Such delays tend to have an affect of snapping the link between prejudicial activity and passing of preventive orders.” We are in agreement with the said conclusion and in the absence of proper explanation, we hold that the long and unexplained delay in passing the impugned order, the detenu is bound to succeed. 6. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 27.2.2005 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set as liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.