Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the second respondent in BDFGIS No.478/2005, dated 30.9.2005, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Chinnavathu @ Ravindran, S/o. Palayam, now confined in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J.) The petitioner, who was detained as 'Goonda' 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), by the impugned proceedings dated 29.9.2005, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Heard Mr. Sampathkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was delay in consideration of the representation of the petitioner dated 26.10.2005. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate, show that the representation of the petitioner was received by the Government on 28.10.2005. 29.10.2005 and 30.10.2005 were holidays. Remarks were called for on 31.10.2005. 1.11.2005 was a holiday. Remarks were received on 3.11.2005. 4.11.2005 to 6.11.2005 were also holidays. Thereafter, the file was submitted on 7.11.2005, dealt with by the Under Secretary and Secretary on 7.11.2005 and finally the file was dealt with by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise on 8.11.2005. Rejection letter was prepared on 9.11.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same day i.e. on 9.11.2005. The rejection letter was served on the detenu on 10.11.2005. 4. The details furnished by the learned Government amply show that if we exclude the intervening holidays, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation of the detenu. Accordingly, we reject the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the detenu has not moved any bail application till the date of passing of the detention order, the Detaining Authority is not justified in arriving at a conclusion that there is imminent possibility of his coming out on bail. 6. We verified para 4 of the grounds of detention. 6. We verified para 4 of the grounds of detention. It shows that the Detaining Authority has very well taken note of the fact that on the date of passing of the detention order, the detenu was in remand in H8 Thiruvotriyur Police Station Crime Nos.2315 and 2321 of 2005 and he has not moved any bail application till the said date. However, considering the fact that by filing the bail application and on the orders of the Court concerned, the detenu will come out and in that event, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and further taking note of his past activities, the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned order of detention. We find no flaw or error in the said conclusion. Accordingly, we reject the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner also. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.