Judgment :- P.Sathasivam, J. Petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu by name Jayakumar, challenges the detention order dated 16.01.2005, detaining her son as a goonda under sub-section (1) of section 3 of 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) (hereinafter referred to as "Act 14 of 1982"). 2. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions; (1) there is a delay in disposal of representation of the detenu; (2) there is a delay in passing the detention order since the ground case has taken place on 20.10.2004; (3) there is defect in Tamil translation and some of the copies supplied are not clear and readable; 3. Coming to the first contention, namely, delay in disposal of representation of the detenu, the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) shows that the representation was received by the Government on 09.02.1995 and remarks were called for on 10.02.2005. Remarks were received on 14.02.2005 and the file was submitted for consideration on 15.02.2005. The same was dealt with by Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 16.02.2005. The Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 17.02.2005. Rejection letter was prepared on 23.02.2005 and the same was served on the detenu on 26.02.2005. Though the Minister has considered and passed orders on 17.02.2005, according to the learned counsel, rejection letter was prepared only on 23.02.2005. 4. We verified those details. If we exclude 19.03.2005 and 20.03.2005 i.e. Saturday and Sunday, the authorities have taken three working days, which cannot said to be either unreasonable or abnormal. On a perusal of those details, we are satisfied that there is no undue delay as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the first contention. 5. Coming to the second contention, namely, delay in passing the detention order, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ground case had taken place on 20.10.2004. While so, the detaining authority passed the impugned order detaining him as goonda under Act 14 of 1982 only on 16.01.2005, nearly after 2-1/2 months. Accordingly, we reject the first contention. 5. Coming to the second contention, namely, delay in passing the detention order, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ground case had taken place on 20.10.2004. While so, the detaining authority passed the impugned order detaining him as goonda under Act 14 of 1982 only on 16.01.2005, nearly after 2-1/2 months. According to him, the said delay is fatal and in the absence of materials to cover up the delay in passing the detention for the incident that had occurred on 20.10.2004, the detention order cannot be sustained. We are unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons; Learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that though the ground case had taken place on 20.10.2004, the detenu / accused was arrested only on 27.10.2005. He further submitted that a murder had taken place inside the premises of Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai and the police have recovered bomb. Considering the gravity of the offence, the prosecution has to collect more materials. In such circumstances, according to him, in the absence of any statutory limitation prescribing certain period, the detention order passed on 16.01.2005 cannot be faulted with. On going through those details, we agree with the said contention and it cannot be claimed that no proximity to the occurrence that had taken place on 20.10.2004. 6. Coming to the last contention, according to the learned counsel, the documents supplied, namely, pages 72 and 73 of the paper book are not readable and not clear. To this, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) pointed out that the said document, namely, post mortem certificate is not a relied upon document. Even otherwise, we verified both English and Tamil version of the post mortem certificate and we are satisfied that the same is readable and contained required materials, namely, the statement and conclusion of the post mortem doctor. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pages 58 to 62 of the paper book supplied to the detenu are illegible and not readable, on verifying the same, we find no force / substance in the said claim. On the other hand, the same were readable. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pages 58 to 62 of the paper book supplied to the detenu are illegible and not readable, on verifying the same, we find no force / substance in the said claim. On the other hand, the same were readable. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also. 7. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, accordingly, the habeas corpus petition fails and is dismissed.