Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the first respondent in connection with Memo No.455/BDFGISV/2005, dated 12.9.2005, quash the same, produce the detenu Baskar @ John Baskar @ Kannadi Baskar, s/o.Guru Joseph, now detained under Act 14/82 in Central prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. Wife of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 12.09.2005, detaining her husband by name Baskar @ John Baskar @ Kannadi Baskar 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. Heard learned counsel for the petitinoer as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 03.10.2005, remarks were called for on 04.10.2005 and the same were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 10.10.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 13.10.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 14.10.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 20.10.2005. The said letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on 21.10.2005 and served to the detenu on 22.10.2005. 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 14.10.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 20.10.2005 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.