Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the order of detention dated 3.9.2005 made in D.O.39/2005-C2 on the file of the second respondent, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue Vanaja who is detained in the prison for Women, Vellore, before the Court set her at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is the husband of the detenue by name Vanaja. He challenges the impugned order of detention dated 03.09.2005, detaining his wife 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 the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. According to him, in the first ground case, the detenue was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.650/- by Judicial Magistrate-II, Cheyyar, however, xerox copy of the receipt which is available at page No.46 of the paper book shows that she had paid a fine of Rs.600/-. On verification of the same, we are of the view that the fine amount has been correctly stated at page No.46 of the Paper Book. Even otherwise, payment of fine in the first adverse case has nothing to do with the ground case based on which the detention order came to be passed. Hence, the above contention is rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though a representation was made prior to passing of the detention order, the same was not properly considered. This contention is liable to be rejected in view of the information available in paragraph No.5(a) of the grounds of detention. It shows that the pre-detention petition sent on behalf of the detenue by her husband Murugan was received by the Detaining Authority, remarks of the Sponsoring Authority were obtained, the representation was rejected after due consideration and the same was served to the petitioner on 02.09.2005. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected. 5. It shows that the pre-detention petition sent on behalf of the detenue by her husband Murugan was received by the Detaining Authority, remarks of the Sponsoring Authority were obtained, the representation was rejected after due consideration and the same was served to the petitioner on 02.09.2005. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the English version of the grounds of detention, in paragraph No.3(d), a reference is made only with regard to samples being taken in bottles and forwarding of the same to the Judicial Magistrate with a request to send one sample from each sample taken as S1 and S2 to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis and to keep another set of bottles (S1 and S2) with the Court. According to him, in the Tamil version of the grounds, reference is made to the samples taken in Plastic Can and about 500 ml. of arrack. From this, he points out that the word 'arrack' found in para-'<' of the grounds of detention has not been mentioned in the English version. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, a reading of the entire paragraph leads to a conclusion that after seizure of the illicit arrack, samples were sent to the Court with a request to forward the same to the Laboratory for chemical analysis. We do not find any error in the description. 6. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the detenue. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenue was received by the Government on 19.09.2005, remarks were called for on 20.09.2005 and the same were received on 21.09.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary on 22.09.2005, Deputy Secretary on 23.09.2005 and the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.09.2005. Rejection letter was prepared on 28.09.2005 and the same was sent to the detenue on the same date and served to her on 03.10.2005. According to the learned counsel, even though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.09.2005, the Officials of the Department are not justified in taking time till 28.09.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. According to the learned counsel, even though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.09.2005, the Officials of the Department are not justified in taking time till 28.09.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In view of the fact there were two intervening holidays, viz., 24.09.2005 and 25.09.2005 being Saturday and Sunday respectively, we are of the view that the time taken by the Officials cannot be said to be unreasonable as claimed by the petitioner, on the other hand, the same is reasonable and acceptable. 7. We do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.