Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce detenue Palani @ Press Palani, Son of Maran, who is now detained in Central Prison, Chennai, in pursuance of the order passed by the second respondent dated 27.4.2005 in Memo No.179/BDFGISV/2005 before this Court, call for the records, set aside the order and set the detenue at liberty forthwith.) P. Sathasivam, J. Wife of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 27.04.2005, detaining her husband by name Palani @ Press Palani 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 as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that there was no delay at any point of time. Though it is pointed out that the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 10.11.2005 and that the rejection letter was prepared only on 15.11.2005, we are of the view that, if we exclude the intervening holidays on 12th and 13th November, 2005, there is no delay at all as claimed and it cannot be said that the time taken by the Officials for preparation of the rejection letter is on the higher side. Thus, we reject the said contention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the remand requisition, which is available at page Nos.85 to 87 of the paper book supplied to the detenu, the reference relating to the ground case as well as other adverse cases and the remand order dated 20.04.2005 of the learned Magistrate, which refers Cr. No.1051 of 2005 alone, ie., ground case, contended that in such circumstances, in the absence of any order in respect of adverse cases, the Detaining Authority failed to consider the imminent possibility of coming out on bail by the detenu. 5. We have verified the statement made in the requisition for remand as well as the order of the learned Magistrate. 5. We have verified the statement made in the requisition for remand as well as the order of the learned Magistrate. As rightly pointed out, learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, has remanded the detenu by order dated 20.04.2005 only in respect of Crime No.1051 of 2005. In such circumstances, the said aspect has been duly noted and considered by the Detaining Authority while passing the order of detention. It is also not in dispute that a copy of the said order has been furnished to the detenu. That being so, merely because the Sponsoring Authority has referred to the Crime Numbers relating to the adverse cases, it cannot be construed that the Detaining Authority failed to take note of the above said aspect as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the representation of the petitioner dated 31.10.2005, would submit that though the petitioner prayed for copy of the remand order in Crime Nos.38/2005, 308 of 2005 and 476 of 2005, the same has not been furnished to her. As rightly pointed out and stated earlier and also not in dispute, the detenu was remanded only in Crime No.1051 of 2005. In such circumstances, there cannot be any communication or sending copy of the remand order in respect of other Crime Numbers as stated. Hence, this contention is also rejected. 7. By drawing our attention to the Special Report, which is available at page No.91 of the paper book, dated 20.04.2005, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of additional affidavit for forwarding the remand order dated 20.04.2005, which was made ready only on 26.04.2005, it is clear that the Detaining Authority has passed the order without placing reliance on the required documents. 8. Here again, learned Government Advocate has placed the file which shows that the affidavit of the sponsoring Authority is dated 26.04.2005. Though in the Special Report available at page No.91, it is mentioned that the same was prepared on 20.04.2005, the fact remans, the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority is dated 26.04.2005. In such circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 9. Though in the Special Report available at page No.91, it is mentioned that the same was prepared on 20.04.2005, the fact remans, the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority is dated 26.04.2005. In such circumstances, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 9. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in the representation dated 31.10.2005, the petitioner has sought for copies of certain documents, which are illegible, in spite of the fact that the copies were directed to be supplied to the detenu even on 15.11.2005, the same were supplied only on 28.11.2005, that is, with a delay of 13 days. 10. Though the detention order was passed on 27.04.2005, admittedly, the representation was made only on 31.10.2005. In the reply dated 15.11.2005, though the Government has stated that those documents are legible and readable, in view of the request made by the petitioner, the same were directed to be supplied to the detenu. Pursuant to the said direction, copies were once again supplied on 28.11.2005. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In any event, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu because of the said delay. 11. 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.