Judgment : R. Banumathi, J. 1. Challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition is the detention order dated 12.02.2007, whereby, the Petitioners husband, viz., G. Muthu, was detained under T.N. Act I4/82, branding him as "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Act. 2. The detenu had earlier come to adverse notice for various cases of C.2 Elephant Gate Police Station in Cr. Nos.19, 23, 622, 674, 715/2006 and 48/2007. The immediate cause for passing the detention order was the occurrence on 23.01.2007, on which date, the detenu is alleged to have wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and is also alleged to have fisted him over his abdomen and is alleged to have hurled bottles and attempted on the life of the de facto complainant. On the Complaint lodged, a case was registered in Cr. No.51/2007 U/s. 34I, 324, 336, 307, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. On being satisfied that the detenu has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the detention order was clamped on the detenu. 3. Even though several contentions were raised and argued as well, the learned counsel for the Petitioner mainly contended that the delay in consideration of representation and serving the rejection letter on the detenu would vitiate the detention order. 4. Taking us through the file and grounds of detention the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there was no undue or unreasonable delay in considering the representation and the representation was considered and the order of rejection was duly communicated to the detenu. 5. The impugned detention order is assailed contending that in the document at Page167, the bottom four lines are in English and the detenu knows only Tamil and non-furnishing of translation copy of bottom four lines in Page-167 has caused great prejudice to the detenu. It was also submitted that the English version of the grounds of detention reflects three crime numbers viz., Cr. Nos.48/07, 5I/07 and 7I5/06, whereas, in the Tamil version of grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority appears to have considered only Cr. No.5I/07, which shows non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 6. We do not propose to deal with these contentions, since, in our view, the ground of challenge on the delay in communicating the result of the representation must succeed. 7. No.5I/07, which shows non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 6. We do not propose to deal with these contentions, since, in our view, the ground of challenge on the delay in communicating the result of the representation must succeed. 7. By a perusal of the chart produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the representation dated 22.02.2007 was received on 27.02.2007. The remarks were called for from the Collectorate, who in turn had sent the report to the Government on 27.02.2007. The report was received by the Government on I.03.2007 and the Minister had dealt with the same on 2.03.2007. Though, the rejection letter was prepared on 2.03.2007, it was sent to the detenu only on 10.03.2007, which was served on the detenu only on 13.03.2007. The Supreme Court in the case of Harish Pahwa v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 198I Crl.L.J 750 (SC), has laid emphasis on the fact that not only the representation of the detenu must be considered and dealt with continuously, but that final decision be taken and the decision must be communicated to the detenu. Normally, if a representation is made or if there is an Appeal for redressal of the grievance, a decision taken must be communicated to the person, who is interested therein. 8. In State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Singh, I990 Crl.L.J. 584 (SC), the Apex Court has observed that it took two months from the date of submission of the representation to the date of informing the detenus of the result of his representation. Eight days were taken by Government after disposal of representation to communicate the result of the representation. The result being that detenu right to prompt disposal of representation violated. 9. It seems to us that the Supreme Court has viewed communication part of this rejection as a necessary facet to the consideration of the representation. Though, the representation has been dealt with expeditiously, it is apparent that the same was not communicated to the detenus as laid down by the Supreme Court. It was imperative on the part of the concerned Authorities to discharge the obligation of dealing with and communicating the decision with all promptness and reasonable diligence. We find that there has been unexplained delay in communicating the decision to the detenus, which in our view would vitiate the detention order. 10. It was imperative on the part of the concerned Authorities to discharge the obligation of dealing with and communicating the decision with all promptness and reasonable diligence. We find that there has been unexplained delay in communicating the decision to the detenus, which in our view would vitiate the detention order. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention dated I2.02.2007 is quashed and the detenus is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.