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 Gopal, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 26.10.2005, detaining the detenu Raji @ Rajendran, his brother as “Goonda” 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 Mr. S. Swamidoss Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the foremost submitted that though the ground case relates to an occurrence that had taken place on 22.04.2005 and the accused / detenu was arrested on 28.04.2005, the detention order was passed only on 30.06.2005. In the absence of proper explanation for the delay of more than two months in passing the detention order amply shows that there is no nexus to the alleged ground case and the detention order. 4. As against the said contention, learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no undue delay as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the fact that several documents have to be prepared and totally four accused were involved in the ground case, it cannot be construed that there is enormous delay in passing the detention order. It is true that as per the grounds of detention, the ground case relates to an occurrence that had taken place on 22.04.2005, wherein, apart from the detenu Raji @ Rajendran, other three persons viz., Elumalai, Kalidoss and Seenu @ Super Seenu, committed offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 392, 427, 506 (ii), and 307 IPC. 5. The sponsoring authority collected several materials from various sources. Learned Government Advocate has pointed out that though statements of witnesses have been obtained on the date of occurrence and the same are available in the file, documents like Accident Register and remand order were secured only by proper application before the authority/Court concerned. 5. The sponsoring authority collected several materials from various sources. Learned Government Advocate has pointed out that though statements of witnesses have been obtained on the date of occurrence and the same are available in the file, documents like Accident Register and remand order were secured only by proper application before the authority/Court concerned. It is also his case that the authority/Court had taken time for supplying those copies and on receipt of the same and after taking several copies of it, other details, viz., complaint, First Information Report, arrest card, arrest report, seizure, AR copy and remand order, etc., the sponsoring authority submitted its affidavit with materials on 28.06.2005 to the detaining authority. The paper book prepared runs into nearly 400 pages. The learned Government Advocate also pointed out that after getting copies from the Court/authority, since they have to be supplied neatly to the detenu and others, again they prepared fresh copies. The explanation offered and the volumness documents as well as of the fact that in the ground case totally four persons involved, we are satisfied that the link has not snapped at any stage and there is no undue delay in passing the order of detention; accordingly, we reject the said contention. It is settled law that the question of delay has to be considered having regard to the facts of the case before the Court and it is not a matter of merely counting days or months. If there is reasonable explanation for the same, that will be sufficient to reject any argument based on the time gap between the date of arrest and the date of detention order. As rightly pointed out, we are satisfied that in this case there has been no unexplained delay. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that there is no imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail, since the detaining authority has not considered Crime No.288 of 2005 (adverse case No.5), which vitiates the ultimate order of detention passed by him. We are unable to accept the said contention. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that there is no imminent possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail, since the detaining authority has not considered Crime No.288 of 2005 (adverse case No.5), which vitiates the ultimate order of detention passed by him. We are unable to accept the said contention. Compared to adverse cases, the offences in the ground case are grave in nature and the detaining authority has rightly shown his awareness in respect of the ground case as well as taking note of the past records of the detenu and after finding that if he comes on out bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be detrimental to the maintenance of public peace and public order, passed the impugned order. We find no flaw or error in the conclusion arrived at by him. 7. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu dated 14.11.2005 was received by the Government on 17.11.2005; remarks were called for on 21.11.2005; remarks were received on 07.12.2005; file was submitted on 09.12.2005; the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with the file on 09.12.2005 and the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 12.12.2005; rejection letter was prepared on 16.12.2005; rejection letter was sent to the detenu on the same day, i.e., on 16.12.2005 and served on the detenu on 17.12.2005. If we exclude the intervening holidays in between every stage, we are satisfied that there is no undue delay and at no time the authorities had taken more than 3 days. Though the Government called for remarks on 21.11.2005, representation and the intimation were received by the Collectorate only on 29.11.2005; a comment was made for taking 8 days time in between the Government and the Collectorate, learned Government Advocate produced the original file, which shows that the requisition was despatched on 21.11.2005 itself. The rubber stamp in the requisition letter of the Government shows that the same was received by the Collectorate only on 29.11.2005. The Supreme Court has held that delay due to postal authorities cannot be taken as a fault on the part of the authorities considering the representation of the detenu. The rubber stamp in the requisition letter of the Government shows that the same was received by the Collectorate only on 29.11.2005. The Supreme Court has held that delay due to postal authorities cannot be taken as a fault on the part of the authorities considering the representation of the detenu. Accordingly, we reject the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under these circumstances, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.