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 the detenue, viz., Vasuki, wife of Radhakrishnan, who is now detained in Special Prison for Women, Vellore, in pursuance of the detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.484/BDFGISV/2005, dated 03.10.2005, before this Court, call for the records, set aside the order and set the detenue at liberty forthwith.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein is the son-in-law of the detenue by name Vasuki. He challenges the impugned order of detention dated 03.10.2005, detaining her mother-in-law as 'Drug Offender' 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, has raised the following contentions:- (a) In view of the discrepancy relating to receipt of message, occurrence etc. in paragraph No.3 of the grounds of detention, the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind. (b) Though order in the bail application of the detenue was passed on 03.10.2005, this relevant fact was not considered while passing the order of detention, which was also passed on the same day. The bail order dated 03.10.2005 was not brought to the notice of the Detaining Authority. (c) Though bail order was passed on 03.10.2005, copy of the same was served to the detenue only on 13.10.2005. (d) There was delay in disposal of the representation dated 27.10.2005. (e) The representation and the remarks were not placed before the Advisory Board, which was held on 09.11.2005. (f) Though the Detaining Authority has forwarded copy of the bail order dated 03.10.2005, it is not clear as to how he received it without any covering letter by the Sponsoring Authority for the same. 4. Learned Government Advocate met all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. (f) Though the Detaining Authority has forwarded copy of the bail order dated 03.10.2005, it is not clear as to how he received it without any covering letter by the Sponsoring Authority for the same. 4. Learned Government Advocate met all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. As regards the first contention, it is relevant to refer the statement of the Detaining Authority in paragraph No.3 of the grounds of detention, which runs as follows:- "On 22.9.2005 at about 18.00 hrs Thiru K.Selvanayagam received reliable information through his informant over telephone that Tmt. Vasuki selling Ganja to public by standing at the junction of Sivarajapurm and Dr. Besant Road. Thiru Selvanayagam immediately recorded the above information in the Station General Diary at 16.10 hrs and also informed the above information to the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, D5 Marina Police Station and on his instruction Thiru K.Selvanayagam along with his police party consisting of Sub-Inspector of Police Thiru Manickavel and Women Sub-Inspector of Police Tmt. Selvarani and proceeded to the said spot and reached the spot at 17.00 hrs and were watching." By drawing our attention to the details mentioned in the First Information Report and the Message, which find place at page Nos.152 to 155 of the Booklet, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the information was received through the informant only at 16.00 Hrs, the Detaining Authority has wrongly mentioned it as 18.00 Hrs, which shows non-application of mind on his part. 6. With reference to the said contention, after going through the narration of facts as found in paragraph No.3 of the grounds of detention, we also verified the F.I.R. available at page Nos.152 and 153 of the Booklet. A reading of the same makes it clear that the information was received from the informant at about 16.00 hrs. to the effect that one Vasuki is selling 'Ganja' to public by standing at the junction of Sivarajapuram and Dr.Besant Road. It further shows that the above information was entered by Selvanayagam, the Sub-Inspector of Police, in the Station General Diary at 16.10 hrs. The Sub Inspector informed the same to the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, D-5 Marina Police Station, and on his instruction, he and the police party proceeded and reached the spot at 17.00 hrs. It further shows that the above information was entered by Selvanayagam, the Sub-Inspector of Police, in the Station General Diary at 16.10 hrs. The Sub Inspector informed the same to the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, D-5 Marina Police Station, and on his instruction, he and the police party proceeded and reached the spot at 17.00 hrs. In view of the details furnished in the F.I.R., which are not in dispute, merely because the Detaining Authority, in Para No.3 of the grounds of detention, has wrongly stated the timing as 18.00 hrs. instead of 16.00 hrs., it cannot be construed that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind before passing the detention order. Inasmuch as all the particulars are available in the F.I.R., which was served to the detenue, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Coming to the second contention, a reading of paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention makes it clear that the Detaining Authority, after taking note of various aspects viz., the detenue has been remanded to judicial custody, she has moved Bail Application before the Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court under E.C. and NDPS Act, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. No.3037 of 2005 for D-5 Marina Police Station Crime No.732 of 2005, pendency of the Bail Application and imminent possibility of her coming out on bail; and after considering all other relevant materials, passed the order of detention. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 03.10.2005 itself the court has granted bail and inasmuch as this aspect has not been considered by the Detaining Authority while passing the detention order, the detention order is vitiated. In this regard, it is relevant to note that bail petition was filed by the detenue on 29.09.2005. Copy of the said petition was placed before the Detaining Authority. Special Report was sent by the Sponsoring Authority on 01.10.2005, enclosing copy of the bail petition. This is evident from the last paragraph of the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority dated 01.10.2005. That is the reason, the Detaining Authority, while passing the detention order on 03.10.2005, after taking note of the pendency of the bail application, that is, Crl.M.P. No.3037 of 2005, has stated about the possibility of the detenue coming out on the orders of the Court. That is the reason, the Detaining Authority, while passing the detention order on 03.10.2005, after taking note of the pendency of the bail application, that is, Crl.M.P. No.3037 of 2005, has stated about the possibility of the detenue coming out on the orders of the Court. Inasmuch as the Court itself has passed the order only on 03.10.2005, without proper communication to the Detaining Authority, he cannot be expected to refer the same while passing the detention order. Accordingly, we are of the view that the detaining Authority has considered all the relevant materials available on the date of passing of the detention order and there is no flaw as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that though bail order was passed on 03.10.2005, copy of the same was served to the detenue only on 13.10.2005, that is, beyond the period of five days. Learned Government Advocate has produced a letter, dated 07.10.2005, enclosing with copy of the bail order dated 03.10.2005, sent by the Detaining Authority to the detenue. This was sent to the Central Prison at Vellore. The endorsement therein shows that the same was received by the Jail Authority on 13.10.2005 and on the same day, copy of the order, both English and Tamil version, was served on the detenue. The original contains her signature also. Accordingly, we are unable to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. It is the claim of the counsel for petitioner that there was delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner. A perusal of the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate shows that the representation was received by the Government on 31.10.2005, remarks were called for on 02.11.2005 and the same were received on 08.11.2005. Thereafter, File was submitted on 09.11.2005 and on the same day, it was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 10.11.2005. The Rejection Letter was prepared on 15.11.2005 (12.11.2005 & 13.11.05 were holidays, being Saturday and Sunday) and the same was sent to the detenue on 16.11.2005 and served to her on 18.11.2005. If we exclude the intervening Holidays, we are of the view that there was no undue delay as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 11. If we exclude the intervening Holidays, we are of the view that there was no undue delay as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the representation, remarks etc. were not placed before the meeting of the Advisory Board held on 09.11.2005. With reference to the said contention, learned Government Advocate has produced the file relating to the proceedings of the Advisory Board. A perusal of the same clearly shows that the Board considered all the materials including the representation, dated 27.10.2005, made on behalf of the detenue (by one Balaji). The said proceedings further show that in addition to the consideration of the representation and other connected records, the Board, on the basis of the request of the detenue, heard her sister by name Hemavathi and also her representation. In view of the information from the records produced by the learned Government Advocate, we are unable to accept the said contention. 12. Finally, an argument was advanced that the bail order dated 03.10.2005, though communicated by the Detaining Authority, it is not clear as to how the same was received by the said authority without a covering letter. First of all, it is to be noted that on the date of the detention order, the available material amongst other things was the bail petition. The same was considered by the Detaining Authority. Thereafter, copy of the bail order was sent to the Detaining Authority, which, in turn, was communicated to the detenue through the Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Vellore. Inasmuch as the said document had been communicated to the detenue after passing of the detention order, it is immaterial as to whether the same was sent along with a covering letter or not. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 13. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.