Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenu viz., Samy @ Munisamy, son of Appavoo, who is now confined in Central Prison, Vellore, in pursuance of the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent on 22.10.2005 in C3/D.O.No.42/2005, before the Court, call for the records, set aside the order and set the detenu at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. Wife of the detenu challenges the detention order dated 22.10.2005, detaining her husband by name Samy @ Munisamy as ‘Bootlegger’ 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 undue delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu dated 31.10.2005. With reference to the same, learned Government Advocate has furnished the details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 02.11.2005 and remarks were called for on 03.11.2005. After Reminder dated 15.11.2005, remarks were received by the Government on 21.11.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary on 22.11.2005 and Deputy Secretary on 23.11.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 24.11.2005. Rejection letter was prepared on 29.11.2005 and sent to the Central Prison for service on 30.11.2005 and served to the detenu on 02.11.2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that the remarks were called for by the Government as early as on 03.11.2005 and that the intimation was received by the Collectorate on 08.11.2005, submitted that though the Collectorate, in turn, called for the remarks from the Sponsoring Authority on 09.11.2005, the said authority forwarded the remarks only on 16.11.2005. Further, even after receipt of the remarks from the Sponsoring Authority on 16.11.2005, there is no explanation for keeping the same in the Collectorate till 20.11.2005. In the absence of proper explanation by the Officer concerned, we hold that the delay at the hands of the Sponsoring Authority as well as by the Collectorate is unacceptable and on this ground, the detention order is vitiated. 5. In the absence of proper explanation by the Officer concerned, we hold that the delay at the hands of the Sponsoring Authority as well as by the Collectorate is unacceptable and on this ground, the detention order is vitiated. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.