Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention made in No.447 of 2005 dated 08.09.2005 by the 1st respondent, set aside the same, direct the respondents to produce detenu Appavu @ Shankar, S/o.Balakrishnan, presently confined in Central Prison, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty. ) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention dated 08.09.2005, 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. We verified the particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 22.11.2005 was received by the Government on 23.11.2005, remarks were called for on 24.11.2005 and the same were received on 30.11.2005. Thereafter, the File was submitted on 01.12.2005 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 02.12.2005. The Rejection Letter was prepared on 07.12.2005, sent to the Central Prison for service on 08.12.2005 and served to the detenu on 09.12.2005. If we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that there is no undue delay as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, we reject the said contention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, contended that inasmuch a line has been inserted in the said paragraph by way of typing, which mentions two Crime Numbers, viz., C1 Flower Bazaar P.S. Cr.No.137/05, C2 P.S.Cr.No.563/05, in addition to the ground case crime No.566/2005 C.2 Elephant Gate Police Station, in the absence of proper explanation by the authority concerned, a presumption arises that the above referred Crime Numbers have been inserted at a subsequent point of time; if so, there is no proximity for passing the impugned detention order. 5. 5. We are unable to accept the said contention for the following reasons: First of all, there is no material to show that a line has been inserted in paragraph No.4. The two crime numbers referred to above are very well available even at the time of passing of the detention order and also it is not in dispute that those Numbers are mentioned in the copy served to the detenu. It is not the case of the petitioner that after service of the grounds of detention, the above insertion has been made in paragraph No.4. In such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no substance in the contention. It is to be noted that the said Crime Numbers viz., Cr.Nos.137/05 and 563/05, relate to 5th and 6th adverse case and the details relating to those cases have been mentioned at page No.2 of the detention order. Accordingly, we reject the contra argument made by the counsel for petitioner. 6. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the F.I.R., which is available at page No.52 of the paper book, name of the accused has not been mentioned. First of all, in a case of this nature, viz., snatching of bag in a bus, it cannot be expected that the complainant has to mention the name of the accused. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, in the confessional statement, the detenu himself has admitted the snatching of bag, which contained Rs.40,000/-. Further, the Recovery Mahazar also shows that out of Rs.40,000/-, on the basis of the statement of the accused, a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been recovered. In the light of the above information, the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 7. We find no valid ground for interference. Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.