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 connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 01.07.2005 in Memo No.321/BDFGISV/2005 against the petitioner Sabapathy, S/o.Munusamy, aged about 26 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Chennai, set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is detained 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), by the impugned detention order dated 01.07.2005, 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 was undue delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu. With reference to the above claim, learned Government Advocate has furnished the details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 28.07.2005, remarks were called for on 29.07.2005 and remarks were received on 03.08.2005. Thereafter, the File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 04.08.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 05.08.2005. However, the Rejection Letter was prepared only on 12.08.2005. The said letter was sent to the detenu on 16.08.2005 and served to him on 17.08.2005. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority passed orders as early as on 05.08.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 12.08.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation by the person concerned, we hold that the delay has caused prejudice in disposal of the representation of the petitioner/detenu. On this ground, we quash the impugned order of detention. 5. 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.