Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The detenu himself is the petitioner. He has been detained by the order of detention dated 28.08.2007 passed by the second respondent branding him as a Goonda, in exercise of the powers conferred under 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Challenging the above said order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed. 2. By an affidavit dated 24.08.2007, the sponsoring authority viz., Inspector of Police (Crime), S-5 Pallavaram Police Station, had requested the detaining authority to take action against the detenu for his detention under the Act 14 of 1982. The said request was made on the ground that the detenu had an adverse case in Cr.No.295 of 2007 on the file of S-5, Pallavaram Police Station for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The ground case came to be registered on a complaint from one Mr.Sugumar, who is a painter by profession stating that while he was proceeding to attend his work on 10.07.2007 at about 5.30 p.m., near slaughtering house ground at Pallavaram, the detenu wrongfully restrained him by brandishing with a patta knife and threatened him to part with money from his pocket and Rs.110/-was forcibly taken away from him and he was also relieved of his wrist watch even while he raised hue and cry. By the time the general public, who gathered at the spot, came for his rescue and made an attempt to apprehend the detenu. On noticing the public, the detenu threatened them at knife point by uttering "vtdhtJ fpl;l te;jP;fd;dh c;fs; vy;yhj;ija[k; xHpr;rpfl;o tpLntd;" and thereafter he escaped from the scene. The complaint given by the said Sugumar was registered in Cr.No.390 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 341 397 r/w 506(ii)of IPC. The detenu was arrested on 11.07.2007 and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, who in turn remanded him to judicial custody till 25.07.2007. Thereafter, the remand was further extended periodically till 05.09.2007. Therefore, the sponsoring authority had requested the detaining authority to consider the detention of the detenu under Act 14 of 1082 with a view to preventing him from acting any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. The said order is questioned in the present petition. Thereafter, the remand was further extended periodically till 05.09.2007. Therefore, the sponsoring authority had requested the detaining authority to consider the detention of the detenu under Act 14 of 1082 with a view to preventing him from acting any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 3. The said order is questioned in the present petition. We have heard both Mr.Rajavelu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondents. 4. Mr.M.Rajavelu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the detenu was arrested on 11.07.2007, the order of detention came to be passed only on 28.08.2008 with a delay of nearly 1 month and 17 days. When there was no bail application pending, the detaining authority ought not have come to a conclusion, that there was an imminent possibility of coming out on bail. There was absolutely no imminent necessity for detention of the detenu as admittedly, the said order of detention was made only after lapse 1 month and 17 days from the date of arrest in the ground case. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the orders of this court made in H.C.P.No.1201 of 2006 dated 22.03.2007 and in Chinnappa Vs. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District and another 2007 (1) TNLJ 21 (Criminal). 5. Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would on the other hand submit the above judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case and on the contrary he would rely upon, yet another judgment in H.C.P.No. 220 of 2004 dated 28.04.2004. 6. We have carefully considered the above submissions. The detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Act 14/1982 can detain an accused, only in the event the authority is of the view that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in the same kind of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 7. The detaining authority in exercise of powers conferred under Act 14/1982 can detain an accused, only in the event the authority is of the view that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in the same kind of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 7. The order of detention should be passed without any least possible delay and even if the delay occurred, it can be explained by the detaining authority to the satisfaction of the court, whether such order of detention is vitiated on the ground of the delay in passing the order of detention from the date of the arrest in the ground case concern, depends upon the facts of each and every case. 8. In this context, the judgments placed before us, on either side are to be independently considered. In C.Mohan Raj @ Rajkumar (H.C.P.No.220 of 2004), the Division Bench was considered a case of a delay of 88 days between the date of occurrence in the ground case and passing the order of detention. In that case, having regard to the fact that there were 25 adverse cases registered against the detenu for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, which were all in quick succession in proximity with each other and the ground case is also related to the offence of theft by force viz., robbery, the explanation offered by the detaining authority was accepted by the court for considering the delay in passing the order of detention and this court was reluctant to accept the contention that the order of detention was vitiated on the ground of such delay. 9. In Chinnappas case (2007 (1) TLNJ 21 (Criminal) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench of this court considered a delay of 5 weeks even after the arrest of the affidavit from the sponsoring authority for passing such an order of detention and consequently quashed the order of detention. In fact, the Division Bench had followed the judgment of this court reported in Ramesh Vs. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli and another 2005 (1) MWN (Criminal) = 2005 TLNJ (Cri.) 129. In fact, the Division Bench had followed the judgment of this court reported in Ramesh Vs. District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli and another 2005 (1) MWN (Criminal) = 2005 TLNJ (Cri.) 129. Factually, in that case even after the sponsoring authoritys affidavit was received, the detaining authority had taken 5 weeks of time to pass the order of detention and further there was no explanation offered for the undue delay in passing the order of detention by the detaining authority and to show that there was imminent necessity to detain the detenu. 10. In fact, a similar question came up for consideration before another Division Bench in Pinniammals case, it was held that the delay in passing such an order of detention will indicate that there was no imminent necessity for passing the order of detention. In that case the incident took place on 23.09.2006, contraband materials were seized, examined and the analysis report relating to the seized contraband materials were available on 27.09.2006, but however, the order of detention came to be passed only on 011. 2006 after the gap of nearly 34 days. 11. Keeping the above said judgments in mind, the facts in the present case should be weighed. There is no dispute that the detenu was arrested in the ground case on 11.07.2007 and on the same date he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate concerned for judicial remand, who in turn extended the remand till 24.07.2007 which was subsequently extended periodically till 05.09.2007. The sponsoring authority, who had requested the detaining authority was aware of the fact even on 11.07.2007 when the detenu was arrested that there was one adverse case of similar in nature. Even then, it had not taken any steps to make a request for the immediate detention of the detenu to the detaining authority for consideration. The sponsoring authority had waited till 24.08.2007, that too after the first remand period was over and there is absolutely no explanation as to why, it had not taken steps to recommend to the District Collector for the detention of the detenu. In all the above three precedents, the question that arose was the delay caused on the part of the detaining authority to pass the order of detention. In all the above three precedents, the question that arose was the delay caused on the part of the detaining authority to pass the order of detention. However, on the facts of this case, the sponsoring authority had sent the affidavit only on 24.08.2007 and the order of detention was passed on 28.08.2007. In such circumstances there is no delay at the level of the detaining authority. Nevertheless, the detaining authority ought to have applied its mind before forming its subjective satisfaction as to the imminent necessity to pass such an order of detention, on the factual aspect that the sponsoring authority itself had taken 1 month and 17 days in recommending the order of detention. The failure on the part of the detaining authority to consider such a fact would add to the factum of delay in passing the order of detention from the date of arrest, till order of detention was made. In these circumstances, we are of the considered we that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the petition should succeed and the order of detention is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 28.08.2007 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case.