Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to call for the records, set aside the order passed by the second respondent in B.D.F.G.I.S.V.No.413 of 2005, dated 12.08.2005, direct the second respondent to produce the body of the petitioner by name Nabisul Asan, son of Samsul Hasan, now 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 12.08.2005, 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. The particulars furnished by the learned Government Advocate show that the representation of the detenu, dated 28.11.2005, was received by the Government on 30.11.2005. Subsequently, remarks were called for on 01.12.2005 and the same were received on 06.12.2005. The File was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 07.12.2005. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 08.12.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 16.12.2005. On the same day, the said letter was sent to the Central Prison for service on the detenu. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the competent authority, viz., Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed orders on 08.12.2005, there is no reason for taking time till 16.12.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. In the absence of proper explanation, even if we exclude the intervening holidays, we are of the view that the delay is on the higher side, which caused prejudice to the detenu in considering his representation effectively. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is quashed. 5. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.