Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce Shanthi before this Court, now confined in Special Prison for Women at Velour, set her at liberty, call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in D.O. No.28 of 2005, C2 dated 07.07.2005, passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is the husband of the detenue by name Shanthi. He challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 07.07.2005, 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 there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenue. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenue dated 09.08.2005 was received by the Government on 11.08.2005, remarks were called for on 12.08.2005 and the same were received on 22.08.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 25.08.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 29.08.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 02.09.2005. The said letter was sent to the Prison for service on 05.09.2005 and served to the detenue on 08.09.2005. 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 29.08.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 02.09.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation, we hold that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenue in considering her 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 quashed. The detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless she is required in some other case or cause.