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 first respondent herein in Memo No.280/BDFGISV/2005 dated 15.06.2005, set aside the order of detention passed against the detenu by name Raj @ Prakashraj, S/o.Venkatesan, now detained in Central Prison, Chennai, produce him before this Court and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 15.06.2005, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, at the foremost, submitted that there was delay in consideration of the second representation dated 18.11.2005, which caused prejudice to the detenu in disposal of his representation. 4. There is no delay in disposal of the first representation dated 18.07.2005, which was received by the Government on 19.07.2005. As regards the second representation, the same was received by the Government on 21.11.2005, remarks were called for on 22.11.2005 and the same were received on 28.11.2005. The file was submitted on 29.11.2005 and, on the same day, it was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary. Finally, the Minster for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 30.11.2005. However, the Rejection letter was prepared on 07.12.2005. The said letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on 08.12.2005 and served to the detenu on 09.12.2005. 5. According to the counsel, though the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 30.11.2005, the officials are not justified in taking time till 07.12.2005 for preparation of the Rejection letter. At this moment, it is useful to mention that in the first representation dated 18.07.2005, the petitioner/detenu himself made detailed remarks, highlighting various aspects. As stated earlier, the said representation was duly considered and disposed of without any delay. At this moment, it is useful to mention that in the first representation dated 18.07.2005, the petitioner/detenu himself made detailed remarks, highlighting various aspects. As stated earlier, the said representation was duly considered and disposed of without any delay. Insofar as the second representation dated 18.11.2005 is concerned, on verification, we find that though certain allegations have been made, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the detenu has not highlighted any special feature than that found in the earlier representation dated 18.07.2005. In such circumstances, though it is incumbent on the part of the Government/Authority concerned to consider the said representation, inasmuch the same has been considered and disposed of by the Government, we are of the view that the delay between passing of the order by the Minister and preparation of the Rejection Letter is not fatal to the ultimate order passed by the Detaining Authority. In any way, this has not caused any prejudice in disposal of the second representation of the detenu. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that all the adverse cases relate to commission of theft and that the ground case alone relates to offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 397, 427 and 506(2) IPC., would contend that the detention order, which is based on solitary instance, cannot be sustained. 7. We are unable to accept the contention made by the learned counsel. Adverse case Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 relate to house-breaking and committing theft (punishable under Sections-454 and 380 IPC.); second adverse case relates to trespass into a house and threatening the inmates with dire consequences (punishable under Sections-452 and 506 (2) IPC); and sixth adverse case relates to snatching of gold thali chain in a public place (punishable under Section-379 IPC). The above details show that those cases not only relate to mere commission of theft but also house-breaking as well as threatening the inmates of a house with dire consequences. In such circumstances, the decision taken by the Detaining Authority after considering all the circumstances including the ground case occurrence cannot be faulted with. 8. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was not remanded in respect of the sixth adverse case, ie., Cr. In such circumstances, the decision taken by the Detaining Authority after considering all the circumstances including the ground case occurrence cannot be faulted with. 8. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was not remanded in respect of the sixth adverse case, ie., Cr. No.1295 of 2005 on the file of K1 Sembium Police Station, the said aspect has not been taken note of by the Detaining Authority while considering ‘imminent possibility’. Here again, as pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the Detaining Authority, while passing the order of detention, had very well in his mind the fact that the detenu is in remand in K1 Sembium PS Cr. No.1340 of 2005 and also noted the fact that he has not moved any bail petition till then. Though there is no specific reference relating to adverse case No.6, in the light of the fact that the Detaining Authority had taken into consideration all the materials with reference to the ground case occurrence, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are satisfied that the Detaining Authority, after taking note of the past conduct of the detenu and after finding that if he comes out on bail he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, rightly passed the impugned order of detention. 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.