Judgment :- Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records related to the petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 23.12.2005 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings No.C3.D.O.57/2005, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner viz., Kutti @ Siva Vinayagam before this Court and set the petitioner at liberty from detention, now detained in Central Prison, Vellore. P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name Kutti @ Siva Vinayagam, who was detained as a ''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, 1 982(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 23.12.2005, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Government Advocate has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 17.01.2006 was received by the Government on 20.01.2006 and remarks were called for on 23.01.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 06.02.2006 and the File was submitted on 07.02.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 08.02.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on the same date i.e. on 08.02.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 17.02.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 20.02.2006 and served to him on 22.02.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 08.02.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 17.02.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 08.02.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 17.02.2006. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of rejection letter is on the higher side and we hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 4. 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.