Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent made in No.115/2005 dated 21.03.2005, quash the same and directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Madhan @ Madhanagopal, presently detained / lodged in Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner in this petition, who was detained as Goonda by the order of the second respondent dated 21.03.2005 in No.115/2005 under Section 3(2) 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), 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, 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 23.06.2005 was received by the Government on 24.06.2005, remarks were called for on 27.06.2005 and the same were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 05.07.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 06.07.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 07.07.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 15.07.2005. The said letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on 18.07.2005 and served to the detenu on 19.07.2005. 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 07.07.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 15.07.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays on Saturday and Sunday, 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. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.