Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to call for the records and quash the order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.202/BDFGISV/2005 dated 9.5.2005 and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu viz., V.Mari, before this Court and set him at liberty from Central Prison, Chennai.) P.Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is the father of the detenu by name V.Mari. He challenges the detention order dated 09.05.2005, detaining his son as ‘Goonda’ as contemplated under 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). 2. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu dated 28.06.2005. 3. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 06.09.2005, remarks were called for on 08.09.2005 and the remarks were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 14.09.2005. Thereafter, File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 15.09.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 16.09.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 23.09.2005 and sent to the Central Prison for service on the very same date and served on the detenu on 24.09.2005. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed orders on 16.09.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 23.09.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays on Saturday and Sunday, we hold that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.