Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.453/2005, dated 12.09.2005, against the petitioner, quash the same and consequently to produce the body of the person of the detenu by name Ega @ Ekambaram @ Yoganandham, from the Central Prison, Chennai, and set him at liberty forthwith.) 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 detention order dated 12.09.2005, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in paragraph No.3 of the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has stated about the complaint lodged by one Chelladurai, copy of the said complaint has not been furnished to the detenu. 4. Learned Government Advocate, by drawing our attention to Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, would contend that the complaint of the said Chelladurai relating to the commission of offence was reduced to writing and the same is very much available at page No.83 of the Booklet. He also produced the records to show that copy of the said F.I.R., which is in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C., has been supplied to the detenu. This aspect has not been denied by the counsel for petitioner. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 5. Coming to the second contention, viz., 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 there is no delay as claimed. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected. 6. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no family member was intimated regarding the detention order passed against the detenu. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected. 6. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no family member was intimated regarding the detention order passed against the detenu. Learned Government Advocate has produced the File which shows that the same was intimated to detenu's sister by name Kala on 13.09.2005 and the intimation was acknowledged by her in the presence of two witnesses. Hence, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel. 7. We do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.