Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's detention under Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 4.10.2005 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings No.485 of 2005, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner namely Subbaiah @ Vempatti Subbaiah @ Gopi before this Court and set the petitioner at liberty from detention, now detained in Central Prison, Chennai.) The petitioner by name Subbiah @ Vempatti Subbaiah @ Gopi, who was detained as an 'Immoral Traffic 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), by the impugned detention order dated 04.10.2005, challenges the same in this Petition. 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 is enormous delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Government Advocate has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 5.11.2005 was received by the Government on 08.11.2005 and remarks were called for on 09.11.2005. After the reminder, the remarks were received by the Government on 11.11.2005. Thereafter, the File was submitted on 14.11.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same date i.e. on 14.11.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 15.11.2005. The rejection letter prepared on 29.11.2005 was sent to the detenu on the same date i.e. on 29.11.2005 and served to him on 30.11.2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 15.11.2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 29.11.2005. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned, we hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 4. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned, we hold that the said delay has prejudiced the detenu in disposal of his representation. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 4. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.