Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the second respondent pertaining to the detention order made in Cr.M.P.No.32 of 2005 dated 12.08.2005 in detaining the detenu under Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 as a 'Bootlegger', quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the said detenu namely, Marimuthu, son of Vellaiyan, aged 22 years, detained at Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P.Sathasivam, J. The petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 12.08.2005, detaining his cousin by name Marimthu as 'Bootlegger' 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. 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 was undue delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. With reference to the above claim, learned Government Advocate has furnished the details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 21.09.2005, remarks were called for on 22.09.2005 and the same were received on 05.10.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 06.10.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 07.10.2005. However, the Rejection Letter was prepared only on 17.10.2005. The said letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on the same date and served to the detenu on 20.10.2005. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority, namely, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed orders as early as on 07.10.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 17.10.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned, even if we exclude the intervening holidays on Saturday and Sunday, we hold that the delay has caused prejudice in disposal of the representation of the detenu. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 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.