Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to quash the detention order in Memo No.436/2005, passed by the 2nd respondent on 26.8.2005, pass direction to produce the petitioner/detenu Yosuf @ Vellai before this Court, who is confined in Central Prison, Chennai, and set him at liberty.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 26.08.2005, 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 27.12.2005, was received by the Government on 29.12.2005. Subsequently, remarks were called for on 30.12.2005 and the same were received on 05.01.2006. The File was submitted on 06.01.2006 and it was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day itself. Finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 09.01.2006. The rejection letter was prepared on 13.01.2006, sent to the Central Prison for service on 16.01.2006 and served to the detenu on 17.01.2006. 4. Though it is stated that after the orders of the Minster for Prohibition and Excise on 09.01.2006, there is no reason for taking time till 13.01.2006 for preparation of the rejection letter, 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. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through certain documents, which are available in the paper book, would contend that, in view of the discrepancy in describing the weapon said to have been used, viz., knife at one place and iron rod in another place; in the absence of proper explanation by the Detaining Authority, the detention order is liable to be interfered with on the ground of non- application of mind. 6. On a perusal of the relevant documents, we are unable to accept the said contention. 6. On a perusal of the relevant documents, we are unable to accept the said contention. Only in the Hospital Memo, the weapon is referred to as iron rod and in all the other documents, viz., Accident Register, F.I.R., Special Report and the statement of witnesses, reference is made only to knife. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the said contention. 7. Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the fact that the detenu has not moved any bail application on the date of the detention order, there is no possibility of his coming out on bail, hence, the conclusion that there is 'imminent possibility' cannot be accepted. 8. We verified the reference made in paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention. The Detaining Authority, after taking note of the fact that the detenu is in remand in C3 Seven Wells Police Station Crime No.496 of 2005, that though he has not moved any bail petition, there is possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application before the Sessions Court or High Court and that bails are granted in similar cases; after recording a finding that if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order; and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction based on the acceptable materials placed before him, passed the impugned detention order. We do not find any flaw in the said decision. 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.