Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce detenu namely Chinnathambi alias Udhayakumar before this Court, who is detained as per the order of detention passed by the first respondent in C.M.P. No.25/GOONDA/Salem City/2005 dated 25.9.2005 and confined at Central Prison, Salem, 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 herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 25.09.2005, detaining her son by name Chinnathambi @ Udhayakumar as 'Goonda' 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). 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 was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 07.11.2005. Subsequently, remarks were called for and the same were received on 15.11.2005 and the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary on 16-11-2005. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the File on 17.11.2005 and the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 18-11-2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 29.11.2005. The said letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on 30.11.2005 and served to the detenu on 02.12.2005. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed orders on 18.11.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 29.11.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.