Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, mother of the detenu Damu @ Damodharan @ Pitta Damu, who was detained as Goonda under section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982"), has filed this petition challenging the order of detention. 2. Heard Mr.S. Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all the connected materials, Mr. S. Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (i) There is a delay in the disposal of representation of the detenu. (ii) The detention order was passed mechanically based on false information and cases foisted by the Inspector of Police, Special Branch, by name, Nandakumar. (iii) Pre-detention representations sent by the detenu on 24.8.2005 and 14.9.2005 were not properly considered by the detaining authority. (iv)The detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4. Adding to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that even though in para-4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that Crl.M.P.No.12582 of 2005, bail application filed by the detenu is pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in the absence of materials to show that the same was pending at the time of passing the detention order, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Government Advocate by placing relevant materials, met all the contentions. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. 7. 5. Learned Government Advocate by placing relevant materials, met all the contentions. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. 7. With regard to the first contention, namely, there is a delay in the disposal of representation, the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the first representation was received by the Government on 26.10.2005, remarks were called for on 27.10.2005, remarks were received on 31.10.2005, the file was submitted and dealt with by the Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary on 7.11.2005, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed order on 8.11.2005, rejection letter was prepared on 9.11.2005, rejection letter was sent to the Superintendent of Central Prison on 10.11.2005 and the rejection letter was served on the detenu on 11.11.2005. Though Mr. Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that after the receipt of remarks from the sponsoring authority even on 31.10.2005, there is no justifiable cause or reason for the delay in submitting the papers for orders till 7.11.2005. Though the relevant materials ought to have been placed on the same day or the next day, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, all relevant materials have to be placed before the officers in proper form and it is not the work of a lower level officer to process the same. Further, as rightly pointed out, on receipt of remarks on 31.10.2005, the decision was taken by the Minister, who is the competent authority, on 8.11.2005. Taking into account the holidays, namely, 1.11.2005 - Deepavali, 4.11.2005 - Ramzan and 5.11.2005 and 6.11.2005 - Saturday and Sunday and also in view of the fact that the rejection letter was sent to the Central Prison on 10.11.2005, we are of the view that there is no undue delay in considering the representation causing prejudice to the detenu. Further, it is not in dispute that other two subsequent representations were duly considered and rejected by the Government. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 8. Regarding the second contention, it is the grievance of the petitioner that there was previous enmity that existed between her son, the detenu and one Nandakumar, Inspector of Police, Special Branch. Further, it is not in dispute that other two subsequent representations were duly considered and rejected by the Government. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 8. Regarding the second contention, it is the grievance of the petitioner that there was previous enmity that existed between her son, the detenu and one Nandakumar, Inspector of Police, Special Branch. According to the petitioner, at the instance of the said Inspector of Police, the police implicated the detenu in the adverse cases including Crime No.2076/2005 pending on the file of Sembiyam Police Station and Crime No. 2576/2005 pending on the file of J.J. Nagar Police Station. It is also the claim of the petitioner that the said Nandakumar took all efforts to eliminate her son under the guise of encounter. Refuting the above contention, learned Government Advocate has pointed out that the said allegation is baseless for the reasons that the first adverse case in Crime No.716/2004 of V.1 Villivakkam Police Station registered on 30.5.2005 was investigated by Amaravarman, Sub Inspector of Police. In fact, after contest, the detenu was convicted and fined for a sum of Rs.500/- on 30.5.2005 by X-Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in C.C.No.26115 of 2004. The second adverse case relates to Crime No.165/2001 on the file of K4 Anna Nagar Police Station, which was investigated by one Vijayanand, Sub Inspector of Police and the case is pending in C.C.No.944/2001. The third case relates to Crime No.688/2002 on the file of F-3 Nungambakkam Police Station, which was investigated by one Raveendran, Sub Inspector of Police. It is also brought to our notice that in that case, recoveries were also made. The fourth adverse case is Crime No.792/2005, V.1 Villivakkam Police Station and the Sub Inspector of Police who investigated the case is one S.Ganesan. The case is yet to be taken on file. The fifth adverse case is Crime No.2076/2005 on the file of K-1 Sembiyam Police Station and it was investigated by one R. Jeyaprakash, Sub Inspector of Police. The last adverse case is Crime No.2576/2005 on the file of J.J. Nagar Police Station. Learned Government Advocate also placed materials before us to show that after forming a special team, the detenu was arrested by one Jaikrishnan. The ground case relates to Crime No.3026/2005 of V-3, J.J. Nagar Police Station for the offences under sections 332, 324, 336, 307 and 506(II) IPC. Learned Government Advocate also placed materials before us to show that after forming a special team, the detenu was arrested by one Jaikrishnan. The ground case relates to Crime No.3026/2005 of V-3, J.J. Nagar Police Station for the offences under sections 332, 324, 336, 307 and 506(II) IPC. In the light of the abundant details available in the grounds of detention and of the fact that different officers are dealing with those cases, we are satisfied that absolutely there is no basis or material for the allegation that only at the instance of Nandakumar, Inspector of Police, Special Branch, these cases were foisted against the detenu; accordingly, we reject the said contention. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pre-detention representations dated 24.8.2005, 14.9.2005 and 2.10.2005 were not properly considered. We have gone through the said representations and the reply sent by the Government, which is available in the booklet supplied to the detenu. We are satisfied that the Government considered all the allegations/grievances expressed by the petitioner/detenu and sent a detailed reply. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 10. By pointing out the accident report or injury report issued by Raj Nursing Home available at page 153 of the paper book, particularly the date and time mentioned therein, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the discrepancies were not noted and considered by the detaining authority. The said contention is also liable to be rejected, because as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the ground case relates to the occurrence that took place on 29.9.2005 in Mogappair East, in that while controlling the detenu, the Sub Inspector of Police sustained injuries for which he was immediately taken to a nearby private nursing home, namely, Raj Nursing Home, 1/234, MMDA, Mogappair Estate, Chennai 600 050 and thereafter he went to the Police Station, registered the complaint and proceeded with the case. We verified the Accident Register copy issued by the private nursing home and the date and time mentioned in the complaint/first information report, we are satisfied that absolutely there is no discrepancy as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. We verified the Accident Register copy issued by the private nursing home and the date and time mentioned in the complaint/first information report, we are satisfied that absolutely there is no discrepancy as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in para-4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has moved a bail application before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P.No.12582/2005 and the same is pending, there was no material before the detaining authority regarding the pendency of the said bail application. According to the learned counsel, in view of the fact that nothing is on record to show that the bail application was pending on the date of passing the detention order, the detention order is liable to be quashed. It is not in dispute that the detenu had filed bail application in Crl.M.P.No.12582 of 2005 and it is dated 4.10.2005. The said petition is available at page 202 to 207 of the paper book. Admittedly, no order has been passed in that petition till the date of detention order, namely, 17.10.2005. In such circumstances, the detaining authority on going through the petition in Crl.M.P.No.12582 of 2005 and in the absence of order thereon by any Court, has rightly stated that bail petition is pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu. We are not able to understand what are the further materials the detaining authority has to consider when no order has been passed on the bail petition till the date of detention order. Accordingly, the above argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Under these circumstances, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.