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 in connection with the order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 31.08.2005 in Memo No.443/2005 against Murali, aged about 22 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Chennai, set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him before the Court 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 31.08.2005, 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, by drawing our attention to three adverse cases and the arrest made therein, would submit that in the absence of any material to show that he came out on bail, it could not be possible for the detenu to commit the offence in the ground case as concluded by the Detaining Authority. According to him, inasmuch as material has neither been placed before the Detaining Authority nor in turn supplied to the detenu, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. Regarding the said contention, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice the confessional statement of the detenu which finds place at page Nos.61 to 63 of the paper book. A perusal of the same makes it clear that though the detenu was arrested in respect of the adverse cases, he was later released on bail. Further, pursuant to the ground case, the detenu was arrested on 11.08.2005 and remanded on 12.08.2005. Again, his remand was extended till 06.09.2005 by remand extension order dated 25.08.2005. The above details are found in the documents at page Nos.74 and 77 of the Booklet. In such circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The above details are found in the documents at page Nos.74 and 77 of the Booklet. In such circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate shows that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 18.10.2005, remarks were called for on 19.10.2005 and the same were received on 21.10.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 24.10.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 25.10.2005. The Rejection Letter was prepared on 28.10.2005 and sent to the Central Prison for service 02.11.2005 and served to the detenu on 03.11.2005. Though an argument was advanced that there was undue delay, if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that there was no such delay at any point of time. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 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 grandmother by name Nagarathinam on 02.09.2005 and the intimation was acknowledged by her in the presence of two witnesses. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. We do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.