Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name Sudhakar @ Sudha, who was detained as Goonda under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"), by the detention order of the second respondent made in Memo No.270/2005 dated 08.06.2005, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking us through the representation of the detenu dated 23.09.2005 and the order of the Government dated 17.10.2005, would submit that inasmuch as while considering the said representation, the Government have taken note of extraneous consideration unconnected with the objection raised in the representation, the ultimate detention order passed by the detaining authority, is liable to be quashed. 4. With reference to the said contention, we verified the representation of the detenu dated 23.09.2005. No doubt, the said representation was sent by an Advocate on behalf of the detenu, highlighting the fact that the detention order is not warranted. While considering the said representation, in the order dated 17.10.2005, the Government have referred to page 88 of the booklet supplied to the detenu, as if the detenu has made confession statement, which is available in that page. On the other hand, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said statement is available only at page 279 of the booklet and not at page 88, as stated in the said letter. The later part of the order proceeds that bail applications filed by the detenu have been dismissed by the trial Court. On the other hand, in para 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has specifically stated that the detenu has not moved any bail petition so far. When such is the position, it is not clear how the Government has concluded that his bail petitions were dismissed. On the other hand, in para 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has specifically stated that the detenu has not moved any bail petition so far. When such is the position, it is not clear how the Government has concluded that his bail petitions were dismissed. As rightly pointed out, though these aspects have been stated in the representation, in the absence of relevant material / incorrect information, finally rejected the representation as unacceptable or devoid of merits. On going through the entire materials, including the representation dated 23.09.2005, the order of the Government dated 17.10.2005 and the particulars furnished by them in the grounds of detention as well as in the paper book, we are satisfied that the Government while rejecting the representation of the detenu has considered extraneous matter / material, which prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. The Courts have held on many occasions that the representation of the detenu has to be considered effectively without delay and while considering the same, the Government have to consider the relevant materials and also communicate the same at the earliest point of time. In the light of our above discussion, we are of the view that the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed; accordingly, quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.