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 Neela @ Neelagandan, 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 first respondent made in Memo No.210/2005 dated 10.05.2005, 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 outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that if we exclude the intervening holidays, including public holidays, we are of the view that there is no undue delay as claimed, hence, the said contention is rejected. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that no one from his family member informed about his arrest. In support of his contention, he brought to our notice the arrest memo, which finds place at page 93 of the paper book, wherein his arrest was intimated to his friend one Perumal. It is the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his arrest ought to have been intimated to one of his family members. He further contended that there is no reference of his friend Perumal, anywhere in his confession statement. It is also stated that how the respondents are justified in intimating his arrest to the said Perumal. He also contended that the same is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1997 S.C.C. (Cri.) 92. 5. As against the above said contention, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice the confession statement of the detenu, which is available at pages 82 to 84 of the paper book. In his confession, at the end, the detenu has stated that after spending money along with his friend and while coming back near E.H. Road, Indhira Gandhi Nagar, he was arrested by police. In his confession, at the end, the detenu has stated that after spending money along with his friend and while coming back near E.H. Road, Indhira Gandhi Nagar, he was arrested by police. It is true that the arrest memo contains the address of the accused; however, the police intimated his arrest only to his friend. We also verified the principles laid down in D.K. Basu's case. There is no compulsion on the part of the police that first they have to intimate the arrest to the family members of the detenu and in the absence of the same, can resort to his friend. In the light of the principles laid down in the said decision and in view of the confession statement of the detenu, wherein he referred to his friend, we are of the view that intimation to his friend cannot be said to be either improper or vitiate the detention order passed by the detaining authority. Accordingly, we reject the said contention also. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Hence, this petition is dismissed.