Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second respondent herein concerned in C3.D.O.No.28/2005, set aside the order of detention passed therein dated 02.09.2005 against the detenu and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Palani S/o Krishnan before the Court and set him at liberty, now detained in Central Prison, Vellore.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenu by name Palani, who was detained as 'Bootlegger' 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 Nardu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned detention order dated 02.09.2005, 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 unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With regard to the above contention, learned Government Advocate has placed certain details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 12.09.2005 and remarks were called for on 13.09.2005 and the same were received by the Government on 26.09.2005. Thereafter, the file was submitted on 27.9.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day i.e. on 27.09.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 28.09.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 05.10.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on the same date and served to him on 08.10.2005. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 28.09.2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time for preparation of rejection letter till 05.10.2005. In the absence of any explanation by the person concerned even after excluding the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of rejection letter is on the higher side and 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. 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 custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.