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 Crl.M.P.No.25/G/2005/E4 setting aside the order of detention passed therein dated 1.12.2005 and direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu by name Raji @ Uralai Raju @ Rajesh S/o Ramamirtham before this Court and set him at liberty now detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, who is the friend of the detenu by name Raji @ Uralai Raju @ Rajesh, who was detained as a “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), by the impugned detention order dated 01.12.2005, challenges the same in this Petition. 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 is delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With reference to the above claim, learned Government Advocate has placed the details, which show that the representation of the detenu dated 01.12.2005 was received by the Government on 15.12.2005 and remarks were called for on 16.12.2005. Thereafter, the remarks were received by the Government on 20.12.2005 and the File was submitted on 21.12.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 22.12.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 23.12.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 27.12.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on 28.12.2005 and served to him on 06.01.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing our attention to the fact that though the rejection letter was prepared on 27.12.2005 and sent for service to the detenu on 28.12.2005, the same was served to the detenu after a week i.e. on 06.01.2006, contended that the said delay vitiates the order of detention. The learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that the rejection letter which was sent by the Government to the Superintendent, Central Prison on 28.12.2005 was received by the jail authorities only on 06.01.2006 and on the same date, the said letter was served to the detenu. The learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that the rejection letter which was sent by the Government to the Superintendent, Central Prison on 28.12.2005 was received by the jail authorities only on 06.01.2006 and on the same date, the said letter was served to the detenu. In such circumstances, the Government cannot be blamed for the delay, if any. It is also not in dispute that other two representations were also considered and rejected by the Government. 4. Finally, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of the third representation dated 10.12.2005, a the copy of the order, dated 10.11.2005, dismissing the bail petition was not furnished to the detenu. The learned Government Advocate by placing the records submitted that the copy of the said order was served to the detenu on 13.01.2006. We have also verified the same and we are satisfied that the copy of the bail order was served to the detenu. Therefore, we reject the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus petition fails and the same is dismissed.