Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus and to direct the Jail authorities, the second Respondent herein, to produce detenu Murthy @ Siva Vinayaga Murthy before this Court and set him at liberty by quashing detention order No.380/BDFGISV of 2005 dated 27.7.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, which was confirmed by the first respondent.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is the father of the detenu by name Moorthy @ Siva Vinayagamoorthy. He challenges the impugned order of detention dated 27.07.2005, detaining his son 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. Though several contentions have been raised, questioning the order of detention, at the fore most, learned counsel for the petitioner has projected that there is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which ultimately vitiates the impugned order of detention. 4. With reference to the said contention, learned Government Advocate has placed details, which show that the representation, dated 02.09.2005, of the detenu was received by the Government on 08.09.2005 and remarks were called for on 09.09.2005. After reminder, remarks were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 16.09.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 19.09.2005 and finally, the Minster for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 20.09.2005. However, Rejection Letter was prepared only on 28.09.2005 and the same was sent to the Superintendent, Central Prison, for service on 29.09.2005 and served to the detenu on 30.09.2005. As rightly pointed out, though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed orders even as early as on 20.09.2005, there is no reason for the Officials to take time till 28.09.2005 for preparation of the Rejection Letter. Even if we exclude the intervening holidays, viz., 24th and 25th September, 2005, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of the Rejection Letter is on the higher side. As said earlier, the undue delay in consideration of the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. 5. Even if we exclude the intervening holidays, viz., 24th and 25th September, 2005, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of the Rejection Letter is on the higher side. As said earlier, the undue delay in consideration of the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. 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 connection with any other case.