Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner by name Pilari, challenges the impugned detention order dated 05.11.2005 passed against her husband Pavul, who was detained as "Bootlegger" 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"). 2. Heard both sides. 3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu dated 18.11.2005. With regard to the same, learned Government advocate has placed details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 18.11.2005 was received by the Government on 21.11.2005; remarks were called for on 22.11.2005; remarks received on 29.11.2005 and thereafter, file was submitted on 30.11.2005. The Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with the file on 30.11.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 01.12.2005; rejection letter was prepared only on 07.12.2005; rejection letter was sent to the detenu on 09.12.2005 and served to the detenu on 12.12.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention viz., that though the Minister has passed an order on 01.12.2005, there is no explanation for taking time by the Officers for preparation of rejection letter till 07.12.2005 and according to him the detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of un-explained delay. 4. The learned Government advocate has brought to our notice that another representation dated 10.11.2005 was addressed to the District Collector and the same was received by the Collector on 14.11.2005, after receipt of the remarks from the Sponsoring Authority, the same was received by the Government on 21.11.2005. If we consider the time taken by the authorities with reference to the said representation, there is no undue delay in disposal of the same. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the representation dated 18.11.2005 was addressed to the Government, we treat the said representation as first representation. If we consider the time taken by the authorities with reference to the said representation, there is no undue delay in disposal of the same. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the representation dated 18.11.2005 was addressed to the Government, we treat the said representation as first representation. Accordingly, in the absence of proper explanation by the Officer concerned, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of rejection letter till 07.12.2005, is on the higher side, which vitiates the ultimate order passed by the detaining authority. On this ground, the order of detention impugned in the petition is set aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case. It is made clear that we arrive such conclusion based on the peculiar circumstances available to this case and this cannot be cited as precedent for other case.