Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order dated 4.8.2005 made in detention order C.O.C.No.22 of 2005 passed by the second respondent herein, quash the same, direct the respondents to produce the body of detenu Suresh, who has been detained in Central Prison at Thiruchirappalli, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. Wife of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 04.08.2005, detaining her husband by name Suresh 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 petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the fact that though the detenu was arrested even as early as on 04.06.2005 in respect of the ground case and even though all the formalities have been completed on the very same date, has submitted that the detention order was passed only on 04.08.2005, ie., after a period of two months. According to the counsel, in the absence of proper explanation, the detention order passed on 04.08.2005 is liable to be quashed since there is no proximity to the ground case occurrence, which, according to the prosecution, had taken place on 04.06.2005. 4. We verified the particulars available in the paper book. It is not in dispute that the detention order was passed, based on the occurrence said to have taken place on 04.06.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to our notice that on the basis of the complaint dated 04.06.2005, the detenu was arrested on the very same date. A perusal of the paper-book clearly reveals that all the formalities, viz., recording the statement of the witnesses, as also the accused, preparation of mahazar etc., were completed on the date of arrest, ie., 04.06.2005. However, admittedly, the Sponsoring Authority, viz., the Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, filed an affidavit before the Detaining Authority only on 11.07.2005 praying to pass an order of detention under Act 14 of 1982 against the accused/detenu. On 04.08.2005, the Detaining Authority passed the detention order. However, admittedly, the Sponsoring Authority, viz., the Inspector of Police, Manalmedu Police Station, filed an affidavit before the Detaining Authority only on 11.07.2005 praying to pass an order of detention under Act 14 of 1982 against the accused/detenu. On 04.08.2005, the Detaining Authority passed the detention order. Though the District Magistrate/District Collector, Nagapattinam, has filed a counter affidavit, except mentioning the date on which the Sponsoring Authority has filed the affidavit and the detention order that was passed on 04.08.2005, no explanation has been furnished for not taking steps immediately after 04.06.2005. In the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned, we hold that passing of the detention order after a period of two months amply shows that there is no proximity to the alleged occurrence that had taken place on 04.06.2005. We accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 or cause.