Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order No.395/2005 dated 3.8.2005 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu by name Pondicherry Kumar @ Kumar S/o Poomalai, aged about 24 years, who is confined in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is the friend of the detenu by name Pondicherry Kumar @ Kumar, who was detained as a '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 03.08.2005, 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, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though in the grounds of detention, particularly in para 3, the detaining authority has stated that the knives and the bags were retrieved from the co-accused Kandhasamy and Shanmugam, a copy of the mahazar relating to the seizure of those knives and bags were not furnished to the detenu. We are unable to accept the said contention since the document viz., form 95, which is available at page 39 of the paper book amply shows the seizure of knives and bags and the copy of the same was sent to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. In such circumstances, the said contention is liable to the rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out the three adverse cases as well as the ground case dated 2.7.2005 submitted that all the three adverse cases relate to theft of sandalwood trees and only in the ground case he was charged for the offences under Sections 337, 427, 307 and 506(2) IPC. In such circumstances, according to the counsel, the detaining authority is not justified in passing the detention order based on the solitary instance of the ground case. 5. With reference to the said contention, we verified the three adverse cases referred to in the grounds of detention. In such circumstances, according to the counsel, the detaining authority is not justified in passing the detention order based on the solitary instance of the ground case. 5. With reference to the said contention, we verified the three adverse cases referred to in the grounds of detention. The first case relates to an occurrence on 23.06.2005 for offences under Sections 35-B and 36-AE of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 r/w 44 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (Amendment) 1992 r/w Rule 3 of Sandalwood Transit Rules 1967 r/w 379 IPC on the file of J.5 Shastri Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1425 of 2005, which shows that he and his associates committed theft of sandalwood trees from Sappotta Garden of Theosophical Society at Adayar premises. In the second case that had taken place on 27.6.2005, he was charged for the offences under Sections 35-B, 36-AE of Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 r/w 44 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (Amendment) 1992 r/w Rule 3 of Sandalwood Transit Rules 1967 r/w 379 IPC on the file of J.5 Shastri Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1471 of 2005, which shows that he and his associates committed theft of two sandalwood trees at Adyar riverside platform of Theosophical Society at Adyar premises. In the third case that had taken place on 01.07.2005, he was charged for the offences under Sections 35-B, 36-AE of Tamil Nadu Forest Act 1882 r/w 44 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (Amendment) 1992 r/w Rule 3 of Sandalwood Transit Rules 1967 r/w 379 IPC on the file of J.5 Shastri Nagar Police Station Crime No.1496 of 2005, which shows that he and his associates committed theft of two sandalwood trees at Alcot Bangalow of Theosophical Society at Adyar premises. Coming to the ground case, it is seen from the complaint that one Murali, who is the Watchman of Adyar Theosophical Society informed that on 2.7.2005 at about 5.45.p.m. while he was proceeding to his house after attending to his work near Oorurkuppam Boys Club, he noticed Kandhasamy, Shanmugam and Pondicherry Kumar @ Kumar carrying bags and on suspicion, the complainant Murali enquired them and immediately all the three, including the detenu threatened the complainant by uttering vulgar words. The co-accused viz., Kandhasamy and Shanmugam took out their knives and rushed to cut the complainant over his neck and the complainant escaped from the said attack. The co-accused viz., Kandhasamy and Shanmugam took out their knives and rushed to cut the complainant over his neck and the complainant escaped from the said attack. Since the complainant raised hue and cry, the public gathered on the spot. All the three by uttering vulgar words, threatened the public and also threw bottles and the broken pieces of bottles scattered all over the road. The public, who were at the spot ran hither and thither for safety out of fear of danger to their lives and properties. The other details mentioned in para 3 of grounds of detention makes it clear that it was not only Kandhasamy and Shanmugam, who were involved in the theft of sandalwood trees but also the detenu, who threatened the public by throwing bottles on them. No doubt even according to the detaining authority, the detenu escaped from the scene of occurrence. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate based on the confession statement of all the three accused, knives and bags were seized under mahazar. In the light of the information furnished and materials found in the grounds of detention, it cannot be claimed that there is no specific overt act in so far as the detenu is concerned. Accordingly, the said contention is also liable to be rejected. 6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is unexplained delay in disposal of the representation dated 14.10.2005 of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With regard to the above contention, learned Government Advocate has placed certain details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 17.10.2005 and remarks were called for on 18.10.2005 and remarks were received by the Government on 28.10.2005. Thereafter, the file was submitted on the same date and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary on the same date and by the Deputy Secretary on 31.10.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on the same date i.e. on 31.10.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 07.11.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same date and the same was served to him on 09.11.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 07.11.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same date and the same was served to him on 09.11.2005. In so far as the time taken for the receipt of the remarks from the sponsoring authority, the details furnished by the Collectorate shows that the representation was received from the Government on 19.10.2005 and the parawar remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 20.10.2005 and the remarks were received from the sponsoring authority on 21.10.2005 and thereafter the report was sent to the Government on 25.10.2005. In between 21.10.2005 and 25.10.2005, there were two holidays viz., Saturday and Sunday. Coming to the time taken by the officials for preparation of the rejection letter, it is true that the competent authority has passed an order on 31.10.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared on 7.11.2005. The learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that 1.11.2005 was a holiday (Deepawali) and 4.11.2005 was a holiday (Ramzan) and 5.11.2005 and 6.11.2005 are holidays (Saturday and Sunday). In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the order dated 10.04.2002 in HCP No.1768 of 2001, submitted that the intervening holidays can be excluded only in case if the holiday falls immediately on the date of receipt or prior to the date of despatch. 7. We verified the factual details and various dates from the said decision. It is seen that even after exclusion of public holidays, Saturday and Sunday, in the case decided by the Division Bench, after taking note of the fact that 19.11.2001, 20.11.2001 and 21.11.2001 were working days, they blamed the authorities concerned for not preparing the rejection letter within the prescribed period. In our case at no point of time the working days exceeded beyond two days. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the said decision does not factually apply to the case on hand. 8. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any ground for interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.