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 connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 27.03.2006 in his office Ref.No.C3.D.O.No.36/2006 against the petitioner Thiru Mathiyalagan S/o Chinnakutti now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, Vellore District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenue before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 27.3.2006, detaining him as '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). 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 undue delay in disposal of the representation dated 18.4.2006. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor furnished the details which show that the representation was received by the Government on 19.4.2006 and the remarks were called for on 20.4.2006. After reminder dated 10.5.2006, the remarks were received by the Government on 23.5.2006. Thereafter, the file was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 24.5.2006 and the Minister for Prohibition & Excise passed an order on the same day. The rejection letter was prepared on 24.5.2006, which was sent to the detenu on 26.5.2006 and served to the detenu on 3.6.2006. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, though the office of the Collector received the intimation from the Government on 21.4.2006, the parawar remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 24.4.2006 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority only on 20.5.2006. In the absence of proper explanation by the sponsoring authority for taking such longer time (20.5.2006) for forwarding the required materials, we are of the view that the delay has prejudiced the detenu in considering 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. 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.