Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the detention order made in Memo No.415/B.D.F.G.I.S.V./2005, dated 12.8.2005, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, the second respondent, set aside the same, direct the respondent to produce detenu Kantha @ Kanthasamy, S/o. Arjunan, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set the detenu at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is detained 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) by the impugned order of detention dated 12.08.2005, challenges the same in this Petition. 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 dated 17.10.2005. With reference to the same, learned Government Advocate has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 19.10.2005, remarks were called for on 20.10.2005 and the same were received on 26.10.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 28.10.2005 and finally, the Minster for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 31.10.2005. Rejection letter was prepared on 07.11.2005 and forwarded to the detenu on the same day and served to him on 09.11.2005. By pointing out that though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 31.10.2005, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Officials are not justified in taking time till 07.11.2005 for preparation of the Rejection Letter. In this regard, it is brought to our notice that 01.11.2005, 04.11.2005, 05.11.2005 and 06.11.2005 were Government Holidays. If we exclude those days, it cannot be said that the time taken by the Officials for preparation of the Rejection Letter exceeded three days. In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no undue delay as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no family member was intimated regarding the passing of detention order against the detenu. In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no undue delay as claimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no family member was intimated regarding the passing of detention order against the detenu. By placing records, learned Government Advocate informs this Court that father of the detenu by name Arjunan was informed on 13.08.2005. Hence, this contention is also liable to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that in view of the fact that the detenu has not moved any bail petition till the date of passing of the detention order, the Detaining Authority failed to consider that there is no imminent possibility of his coming out on bail. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention cannot be justified and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. In Paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated that he was aware of the relevant fact that the detenu was in remand in H-1 Washermenpet Police Station Crime No.797/2005 and he has not moved any bail petition until then. After saying so, the Detaining Authority arrived at the conclusion that there is imminent possibility of his coming out on bail for the above case by filing a bail petition before the Sessions Court or High Court. On a careful perusal of the said paragraph, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because, it cannot be ruled out that the detenu will not file bail application in the near future. Taking note of the awareness on the part of the Detaining Authority and the materials placed before him, we are satisfied that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the English and Tamil version of the Remand Order dated 03.08.2005, which are available at page Nos.60 and 61 respectively of the Booklet, would submit that the words "Accusation stated", which find place in the English version, are absent in the Tamil version supplied to the detenu. According to him, due to the omission/improper translation, the detenu is prejudiced in making effective representation. 8. We are unable to accept the said contention. According to him, due to the omission/improper translation, the detenu is prejudiced in making effective representation. 8. We are unable to accept the said contention. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, even in the Tamil version of the remand order, the name of the accused, Crime Number, offences committed by him and the order remanding him to judicial custody till 17.08.2005, are very much available. In such circumstances, we are of the view that merely because there is an omission to mention/translate the words 'Accusation stated' in the Tamil version, it cannot be claimed that the detenu is prejudiced in any manner. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the Special Report submitted by the Sponsoring Authority contains all the required details. 9. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.