Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in C.No.14/G/IS/2005 dated 04.06.2005 on the file of the second respondent herein, quash the same as illegal; consequently, direct the respondents to produce detenu Manikandan @ Kundu Manikandan, son of Gopal, who is now confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore, and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 04.06.2005, detaining him 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 delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu dated ‘nil’. A perusal of the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate shows that the representation was received by the Government on 20.06.2005, remarks were called for on 21.06.2005 and the same were received on 28.06.2005. Thereafter, the File was submitted on 29.06.2005 and dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same date. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 30.06.2005. The Rejection Letter was prepared on 06.07.2005 and the same was sent to the Central Prison for service on 07.07.2005 and served to the detenu on 11.07.2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no justification on the part of the Sponsoring Authority to take time for sending the report till 27.06.2005. In this regard, the particulars furnished by the Collectorate show that intimation from the Government was received by the Collectorate on 24.06.2005. Based on the same, parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 25.06.2005 and the same were received from the Sponsoring Authority on 26.06.2006. Subsequently, report was sent to the Government on 27.06.2005 and the same was received by it on 28.06.2005. Hence, there was no undue delay on the part of the Sponsoring Authority in forwarding the remarks. 5. Subsequently, report was sent to the Government on 27.06.2005 and the same was received by it on 28.06.2005. Hence, there was no undue delay on the part of the Sponsoring Authority in forwarding the remarks. 5. Coming to the contention that though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 30.06.2005, the Rejection Letter was prepared only on 06.07.2005; if we exclude the intervening holidays, viz., 02.07.2005 and 03.07.2005, we are of the view that there was no undue delay in preparation of the rejection letter. In matters like this, courts have repeatedly held that three days’ period in between two stages is permissible and the same cannot be construed as ‘undue delay’ on the part of the authority concerned. Accordingly, we reject the contention relating to delay. 6. It is also stated that a second representation was made (dated nil) and that even in the disposal of the said representation, there was delay on the part of the authorities. Here again, the particulars furnished show that the representation was received by the Government on 21.10.2005, remarks were called for on 24.10.2005 and the same were received on 07.11.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 08.11.2005. Finally, the Minster for Prohibition and Excised passed orders on 09.11.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 15.11.2005 and was sent to the Central Prison on 16.11.2005 and served to the detenu on 21.11.2005. Here again, though it is contended that there was delay at every stage, first of all, it is to be noted that it is the second representation and secondly, if we exclude the intervening holidays, it cannot claimed that there was undue delay in disposal of the representation. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the detenu was served with a copy of the F.I.R., which is in English, the Tamil version was not supplied to him. The said contention is liable to be rejected since Tamil version of the printed F.I.R. has been supplied to the detenu (vide page No.55 to 57 of the paper book supplied to the detenu). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the complaint made against the detenu by the complainant was not supplied to him in spite of the specific requisition made. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the complaint made against the detenu by the complainant was not supplied to him in spite of the specific requisition made. As rightly stated by the learned Government Advocate, copy of the complaint relied on has been supplied to the detenu. Further, copy of the same, which bears the signature of the complainant, is available at page No.54 of the paper book. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also brought to our notice that charge sheet has already been filed with regard to the said crime. 9. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.