Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu, viz., Sakthivel, S/o. Chinnappan before this Court, who is detained as per the order of detention passed by the first respondent in Cr.M.P.No.58/05 dated 30.09.2005 and confined at Central Prison, Trichy and set him at liberty and further direction for call for the records relating to the above said order and quash the same.) P. Sathasivam, J. Son-in-law of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 30.09.2005, detaining his father-in-law by name Sakthivel as ‘Boot-legger’ as contemplated under Section 2(b) of 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 inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu dated 29.10.2005 was received by the Government on 08.11.2005, remarks were called for on 09.11.2005 and the same were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 17.11.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 17.11.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 18.11.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 29.11.2005. The said letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on 30.11.2005 and served to the detenu on 02.12.2005. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed orders on 18.11.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 29.11.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays on Saturday and Sunday as well as the public holidays, we hold that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.