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 order passed by the second respondent in B.D.F.G.I.S.No.140/2005 dated 29.3.2005, quash the same, produce the detenue Raja @ Bombay Raja, son of Athiveeran, detained in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. Wife of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 29.03.2005, detaining her husband by name Raja @ Bombay Raja 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. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the foremost, submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. With regard to the the same, learned Government Advocate has produced the details which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 02.05.2005, remarks were called for on 03.05.2005 and the same were received on 10.05.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 11.05.2005. Finally, the Minister for prohibition and Excise passed orders on 12.05.2005. The Rejection Letter was prepared on 17.05.2005 and the same was sent to the Superintendent, Central Prison, for service on 18.05.2005 and served to the detenu on 19.05.2005. If we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that there is no undue delay on the part of the authorities concerned in considering the representation of the detenu. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the detention order was passed on 29.03.2005, copy of the same and other connected documents were served only on 03.04.2005. It is not in dispute that, as per the provisions of the Act, the detention order and the connected materials have to be served not later than five days from the date of the detention. Inasmuch as copies of the documents were served on 03.04.2005, we are of the view that it satisfied the compliance of the statutory mandate. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also. 5. Inasmuch as copies of the documents were served on 03.04.2005, we are of the view that it satisfied the compliance of the statutory mandate. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by pointing out that the confessional statement of co-accused by name Suresh, which was relied on by the Detaining Authority, has not been furnished to the detenu, submitted that due to non-supply of such document, the ultimate order passed by the Detaining Authority cannot be sustained. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the Detaining Authority, based on the confessional statement of the detenu, which is available at page No.110 of the paper book, and after being satisfied with other materials placed before him, passed the impugned order of detention. According to him, the Detaining Authority has merely referred the confessional statement of Suresh, who is a co-accused. In such circumstances, we accept the explanation offered by the learned Government Advocate and reject the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally submitted that though the Sponsoring Authority has submitted a Special Report regarding extension of remand, in the absence of specific date in the said Report or covering letter, it is doubtful as to whether the Detaining Authority possessed such information on the date of passing the detention order. For this, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that even on 16.03.2005, learned Special Magistrate-II, Poonamallee, extended the remand till 30.03.2005. Both the English and Tamil version of the said order are available at Page Nos.123 and 124 respectively of the paper book. According to him, in the Special Report, available at page No.125, the Sponsoring Authority has correctly intimated the remand extension order passed by the learned Magistrate on 16.03.2005, extending the remand till 30.03.2005. In such circumstances, merely because the Special Report did not contain the date, it cannot be construed that the Detaining Authority was not having the required details. In the light of the explanation offered, we reject this contention also. 7. We do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.