Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in C1/D.O./01/2206 dated 11.01.2006 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Govindan, son of Viruthagiri Padayachi who now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 11.1.2006, detaining his son by name Govindan 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 Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor show that the representation was received by the Government on 2.5.2006. Remarks were called for on 3.5.2006 and the remarks were received on 9.5.2006. The file was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 10.5.2006. However, the Minister for Prohibition & Excise passed an order on 23.5.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 23.5.2006, which was sent to the detenu on 24.5.2006 and served to the detenu on 26.5.2006. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, though the Deputy Secretary had considered the representation on 10.5.2006 and prepared a note, the Minister for Prohibition & Excise, who is the authority competent, has passed an order only on 23.5.2006. In the absence of proper explanation by the persons concerned, we hold that the delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.