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 Manikandan, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 17.10.2005, detaining him 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 both sides. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the foremost, submitted that in the absence of specific request in the representation dated 28.10.2005, the Advisory Board ought not to have forwarded the same to the Government. Hence, the said representation cannot be treated as a first representation and the actual representation is dated 16.11.2005, which, according to the learned counsel, was not considered and disposed of within a reasonable time. 4. As against the above contention, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has brought to our notice that the representations dated 28.10.2005, 16.11.2005 and the third representation (received by the Government on 05.12.2005) were duly considered and rejected within a reasonable time. 5. In the light of the said contention, we verified the representation dated 28.10.2005. It is a representation sent by the detenu himself from the Prison, Vellore addressed to the Chairman, Advisory Board and marking copies to detaining authority as well as the Government. A perusal of the proceedings of the Advisory Board show that on verification of the said representation received by themselves directly from the detenu and a copy addressed to the Government, which was forwarded to them, after enquiring the detenu and after satisfying the grounds of detention, they forwarded the representation dated 28.10.2005 to the Government along with records for necessary orders. The said representation running into 9 pages and it refers all details relating to the ground case as well as the other cases referred to in the grounds of detention. Though the detenu has not prayed that the said representation be forwarded to the Government for consideration, it is but proper on the part of the Advisory Board to forward all the representations either received prior to the date of hearing or at the time of hearing when the detenu appeared before them to forward the same to the Government for appropriate orders. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the representation dated 28.10.2005 is the first representation in all purposes. As far as the said representation is concerned, we verified the details furnished by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side). On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that if we exclude the intervening holidays, we find that there is no undue delay at any stage on the part of the Government in disposal of the said representation. 6. We also verified the second representation dated 16.11.2005 and the third representation which was received by the Government on 05.12.2005. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has also placed details regarding disposal of those representations and the ultimate decision taken by the Government. We are satisfied that the Government, after due consideration, disposed of the said representations. 7. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to the time taken by the Government in preparation of rejection letter in so far as the representation dated 16.11.2005, is on the higher side and on that ground, seeks quashing of the detention order. 8. As said earlier, the representation dated 16.11.2005 is the second representation. Even in the first representation dated 28.10.2005, the detenu has mentioned all the details / grounds addressing the same to all the three authorities, namely, Advisory Board, Government and detaining authority. The courts have taken a view that all the representations have to be duly considered by the Government; but it does not mean that each and every representation has to be disposed of without delay. 9. As discussed earlier, we are satisfied that in so far as the first representation dated 28.10.2005, there is no undue delay on the part of the Government. In considering the second representation dated 16.11.2005, though the officers have taken little longer time in preparation of the rejection letter in view of the fact that the said representation is only repetition of the earlier representation in brief form, we are satisfied that the detenu has not prejudiced in any way for disposal of the said representation. 10. In fact, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has also placed that the detenu has submitted third representation in a typed form, that was received by the Government on 05.12.2005. The said representation was also duly considered by the Government. 10. In fact, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has also placed that the detenu has submitted third representation in a typed form, that was received by the Government on 05.12.2005. The said representation was also duly considered by the Government. In such a circumstance, we are unable to accept the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 11. Coming to the next contention, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through relevant paragraphs from the grounds of detention, confessional statement of the detenu and all other relevant materials, would contend that in the absence of specific overt act attributed for the death of one Venkatesan, the detaining authority is not justified in detaining the detenu as a Goonda. He also contended that in any event, there is no public order warranting clamping of Act 14 of 1982 in the case of the petitioner. 12. In the light of the said contention, we verified the necessary discussion from the grounds of detention. After referring earlier three instances starting from 30.05.2003 and the occurrence relating to the ground case, the detaining authority has arrived the conclusion that the detenu, by name, Manikandan, is habitually committing crimes and acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. He also concluded that, by committing the crime in the public, in a busy residential-cum-business area, in the busy day time has created alarm and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of the area and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 13. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice the statement of the sponsoring authority in the petition filed before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and the confessional statement of the detenu. According to him, the above details show that at the most the detenu was guarding the accused and he has not caused a single injury to the deceased Venkatesan. In such circumstance, according to him, as stated earlier, the detaining authority, without considering the same, passed the detention order. 14. We verified those documents. On the reading of entire confessional statement starting from 277 to 280, amply shows his involvement in the ground case. In such circumstance, according to him, as stated earlier, the detaining authority, without considering the same, passed the detention order. 14. We verified those documents. On the reading of entire confessional statement starting from 277 to 280, amply shows his involvement in the ground case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), in the earlier part of his confessional statement, which is available at page 279, he has stated about the conspiracy for committing murder of Venkatesan along with co-accused, namely, Baskar, Suresh, Balu, Auto Balu, Chandru, etc. The reading of the statement available at page 279 shows that the detenu along with the other accused, planned to murder the deceased Venkatesan. Apart from the above details, the grounds of detention also show that the detenu along with two others, not only guarded the accused, but also threatened the nearby public and caused alarm in their mind that no one should interfere with their act. It also shows that by their conduct including the detenu, the people ran here and there for safety. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that there is no public order and the decision taken by the detaining authority cannot be underestimated/faulted with. Accordingly, we reject the second contention also. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is dismissed.