Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu, namely, Ravi S/o. Otcha Thevar, before this Court, who is detained as per the order of detention passed by the first respondent in C.O.C.No.32/2005 dated 29.10.2005 and confined at Central Prison, Trichy and set him at liberty and further direction to call for the records relating to the above said order and quash the same.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, wife of the detenu, who was detained as a bootlegger under Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 29.10.2005, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard Mr.Manivasakam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). 3. At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation was received by the Government on 21.11.2005, remarks called for on 22.11.2005, remarks received on 29.11.2005 and the file submitted for orders on 30.11.2005, Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with the same on 1.12.2005 and finally the Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed an order on 2.12.2005. Rejection letter was prepared on 7.12.2005, the same was sent to the detenu on 8.12.2005 and served to the detenu on 10.12.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Minister has passed an order on 2.12.2005, there is no reason to take time till 7.12.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. If the intervening holidays, namely, 3.12.2005 and 4.12.2005, are excluded, then we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of the rejection letter comes within the permitted period of three days. Accordingly, we find that there is no undue delay as claimed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next contended that in the affidavit of the sponsoring authority dated 20.10.2005, there is no reference to the remand extension order that was passed on 24.10.2005 and according to him, in the absence of any material, the detaining authority is not justified in passing the detention order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next contended that in the affidavit of the sponsoring authority dated 20.10.2005, there is no reference to the remand extension order that was passed on 24.10.2005 and according to him, in the absence of any material, the detaining authority is not justified in passing the detention order. With regard to the said contention, learned Government Advocate has informed this Court that the sponsoring authority, by his affidavit dated 27.10.2005 (second affidavit) has furnished those details and the same were taken into consideration by the detaining authority. In the light of the same, in view of the fact that the same is available in the records, we find no merit in the argument advanced. 5. Next, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the reference made in paragraph 3 (drug substance) and paragraph 4 (poisonous substance) would contend that in the light of the discrepancy and in the absence of any proper explanation, the detention order is liable to be interfered with. We are unable to accept the said contention, since, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, what is stated in paragraph 3 is the confessional statement of the accused/detenu and not the observation of the detaining authority. On the other hand, in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is a bootlegger for possession and selling of arrack mixed with poisonous substance in contravention of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937, thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. In the light of the fact that the earlier statement refers to the confessional statement of the detenu and not that of the view of the detaining authority, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that though the bail petition of the detenu was dismissed on 17.10.2005, the detaining authority has passed the detention order only on 29.10.2005. In such circumstances, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu to come out on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that though the bail petition of the detenu was dismissed on 17.10.2005, the detaining authority has passed the detention order only on 29.10.2005. In such circumstances, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu to come out on bail. Here again, the perusal of paragraph 5 of the grounds of detention makes it clear that the detaining authority was aware of all the relevant materials, namely, that the detenu was remanded at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, by the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam, upto 24.10.2005 and further extended till 7.11.2005. He was also aware of the further information that the detenu has moved a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.6051 of 2005 in respect of Crime No.1449 of 2005 and the same was dismissed on 17.10.2005 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam. However, after taking note of all these aspects and considering the fact that by filing another bail application, it would be possible for the detenu to come out on bail and after finding that there is imminent possibility, in the light of his past activities as well as if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health, the detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order. Here again, we find no error or infirmity in such conclusion. 7. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no one was intimated regarding the passing of the detention order. Learned Government Advocate, by placing the records, informed this Court that the wife of the detenu, namely, Nagalakshmi, who is the petitioner herein, was intimated even on 30.10.2005 whereas the detention order was passed on 29.10.2005. In such circumstances, the said contention is also liable to be rejected and it is, accordingly, rejected. 8. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.