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 second respondent herein concerned in CMP No.22/B.L/Salem city/2005, set aside the order of detention passed therein dated 26.08.2005 against the detenu and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Paramasivam S/o Mari Gounder before the Court and set him at liberty, detained in Central Prison, Salem.) P.Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the detenu by name Paramasivam, who was detained as 'Bootlegger' 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 26.08.2005, challenges the same in this Petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the only contention that there is unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenu, which vitiates the ultimate order of detention. With regard to the above contention, learned Government Advocate has placed certain details, which show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 09.09.2005 and remarks were called for on 13.09.2005 and the remarks were received by the Government on 20.09.2005. Thereafter, the file was submitted on 21.09.2005 and the same was dealt with by the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on the same date i.e. on 21.09.2005 and finally, the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed orders on 22.09.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 28.09.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on 30.09.2005 and served to him on 04.10.2005. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the authorities have taken longer time at every stage, on going through the particulars that the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed an order on 22.9.2005 and the rejection letter was prepared on 28.9.2005, after excluding the intervening holidays on 24.9.2005 and 25.9.2005, we are satisfied that there is no undue delay on the part of the authorities. Accordingly, we reject the said contention. 4. In the light of what is stated above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.