Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenu by namely Selvam @ Selvakumar S/o Ganesan before this Court, who is detained as per the order of detention passed by the first respondent in Cr.M.P.No.2/2006 dated 25.02.2006 and confined at Central Prison, Trichy and set him at liberty and further direction to call for the records relating to the above said order and quash the same.) V.Dhanapalan, J. The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu by name Selvam @ Selvakumar, who was detained as a ''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), by the impugned detention order dated 25.02.2006, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 09.03.2006 was received by the Government on 14.03.2006 and remarks were called for on 15.03.2006 and the reminder was sent on 31.03.2006. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 11.04.2006 and the File was submitted on the same day i.e. on 11.04.2006 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 12.04.2006 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 13.04.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 05.05.2006 and the same was sent to the detenu on 09.05.2006 and served to him on 11.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 13.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 05.05.2006. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 13.04.2006, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 05.05.2006. 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.