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 Easwari, challenges the impugned order of detention dated 19.09.2005, detaining her son M. Selvaraj, 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. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining authority. According to him, though the confession statement of the detenu was recorded on 07.08.2005, the witnesses have signed the same only on 08.08.2005 and this discrepancy has not been noticed by the Detaining authority. 4. As against this, learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that the recording of confession statement of the detenu started at 22.40 hours on 07.08.2005 and it continued till the early hours of 08.08.2005 and that is the reason why the witnesses signed the same on 08.08.2005. We verified the confession statement of the detenu, which runs into 12 pages. In such circumstances, we are satisfied that there cannot be any discrepancy as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even in the other documents, such as Mahazar, etc., the date was noted as 08.08.2005. Accordingly, there is no substance in the said contention. 5. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pre-detention representation was not considered. First of all, the pre-detention representation was not dated. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner was brought to our notice that initially it was presented to the Deputy Commissioner, but he declined to receive the same and thereafter, through the local M.L.A., the said representation was forwarded to the authority concerned. The verification of the said representation shows that it was not addressed to the authority concerned. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that there is substance in this contention also. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation of the detenu dated 19.10.2005 was not properly considered by the Government. The verification of the said representation shows that it was not addressed to the authority concerned. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that there is substance in this contention also. 6. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation of the detenu dated 19.10.2005 was not properly considered by the Government. He also pointed out that though several allegations/grievances were expressed in the said representation, a cryptic reply was sent by the Government without meeting all those points. We verified the representation dated 19.10.2005 as well as the reply dated 20.10.2005 of the Government. A perusal of the reply shows that the Government carefully considered all the allegations made in the representation and taking note of his involvement in several crimes prior to the date of detention and all other aspects, rejected the said representation as devoid of merits. Hence, it cannot be said that the said reply is a non-speaking one or does not contain any reason. 7. In this regard, learned Government Advocate relied on a decision of the Supreme court in the case of K.M. Abdulla Kanhi vs. Union of India reported in 1991 S.C. (Crl.) 613, wherein their Lordships after referring the Constitution Bench decision (Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1975 (3) SCC 198 ) has concluded that, “.... there need not be a speaking order in disposing of such representation. There is also no failure of justice by the order not being a speaking order. All that is necessary is that there should be real and proper consideration by the Government.” In the light of the above said decision and in view of the reasons stated in the reply dated 20.10.2005, we are unable to accept the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in respect of one of the adverse cases the crime number has not been correctly stated in the Tamil version of the grounds of detention. We verified the same. Merely because there is an error in describing the crime number in respect of one of the adverse cases, it would not affect the detention order passed by the Detaining authority. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 9. We verified the same. Merely because there is an error in describing the crime number in respect of one of the adverse cases, it would not affect the detention order passed by the Detaining authority. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 9. In addition to the above, it is also brought to our notice that HCP.No.1305 of 2005 (K. Jayakrishnan vs. State of Tamil Nadu) filed on behalf of the co-detenu was also dismissed by this Court on 14.03.2006. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition; hence, the same is dismissed.