Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent made in No.279/BDFGISV/2005, dated 15.06.2005, set aside the same, direct the respondents to produce detenu Mohammed Ravoof Ameer, s/o. Mohammed Ravoof, presently confined in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 15.06.2005, detaining him 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 and learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. On a perusal of the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate, we are of the view that, if we exclude the intervening holidays, there is no delay in considering the representation as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and various orders passed by the Magistrate, granting initial remand and extending the same then and there, would submit that in the absence of valid order by the learned Magistrate, viz., initial remand and subsequent extension orders up to the date of passing of the detention order, the impugned order of detention cannot be sustained. 5. In the light of the said contention, we verified from the records that when the detenu was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 11.05.2005, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 12.05.2005, directed that the accused (detenu) be produced by 13.05.2005 and extended the remand till that time. Special Report, dated 13.06.2005, submitted by the Sponsoring Authority, which is available at Page No.253 of the paper book, refers various orders regarding extension of remand by the learned Magistrate. It is not in dispute that on the date of passing of the detention order, i.e., on 15.06.2005, the detenu was in remand by a valid order, extending the remand till 23.06.2005. 6. It is not in dispute that on the date of passing of the detention order, i.e., on 15.06.2005, the detenu was in remand by a valid order, extending the remand till 23.06.2005. 6. In addition to the same, learned Government Advocate heavily relied on conclusion Nos.1 and 2 in paragraph No.12 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1992 SCC Criminal Page No.1 (Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India), which read as follows:- "(1) A detention order can validly be passed even in the case of a person, who is already in custody. In such a case, it must appear from the grounds that the authority was aware that the detenu was already in custody. (2) When such awareness is there then it should further appear from the grounds that there was enough material necessitating the detention of the person in custody. This aspect depends upon various considerations and facts and circumstances of each case. If there is a possibility of his being released and on being so released he is likely to indulge in prejudicial activity then that would be one such compelling necessity to pass the detention order. The order cannot be quashed on the ground that the proper course for the authority was to oppose the bail and that if bail is granted notwithstanding such opposition the same can be questioned before a higher court. " 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and in view of the fact that the Detaining Authority was aware of the fact that on the date of passing of the detention order, i.e., on 15.06.2005, the detenu was in remand by a valid order of the learned Magistrate, it cannot be said that the Detaining Authority passed the detention order without considering the materials/documents placed before him. 8. It is also relevant to refer the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in HCP No.1448 of 1999, dated 07.04.2000, wherein, the Bench held that the Detaining Authority is expected to satisfy himself about the detenu being in remand on the date when he passes the order of detention. A reading of paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention makes it clear that the Detaining Authority was very well aware of the relevant fact, viz., the detenu was in remand by a valid order of the learned Magistrate. A reading of paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention makes it clear that the Detaining Authority was very well aware of the relevant fact, viz., the detenu was in remand by a valid order of the learned Magistrate. In such circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 9. We do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.