Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in C.O.C. 71/2007 dated 112. 2007 whereby one Ramar, the son of the petitioner herein was termed as Bootlegger, as defined under Section 14 of Tamil Nadu Act 1982. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The order under challenge is also perused. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State. 3. Admittedly, as seen from the grounds of detention, on the strength of recommendation made by the sponsoring authority, a case in Crime No.268 of 2007 has been registered in Mayiladuthurai P.E.W. and Crime Nos.386 of 2007, 443 of 2007 and 486 of 2007 have been registered by the Kuthalam Police Station on different dates mentioned therein under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and on the strength of the ground case, the detaining authority after looking into the materials available has recorded in the impugned order that the said Ramar has to be termed as a Bootlegger in view of his activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health and also in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future, he has got to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Accordingly, the second respondent passed the detention order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made emphasis only on the delay caused in consideration of the representation and he would further urge that the said inordinate and unexplained delay has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu and hence the detention order has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the sole contention. 6. The detention order came to be passed on 112. 2007 terming him as Bootlegger. Admittedly, a representation was made on 1. 2008 and on receipt of the representation on 21. 2008, remarks were called on 21. 2008 and on receipt of the same, reminders were also given on 2. 2008 and 22. 2008, but the remarks were received only on 22. 2008. It could also be seen that representation was received from the Government to the Collectorate on 31. 2008 and on receipt of the representation on 21. 2008, remarks were called on 21. 2008 and on receipt of the same, reminders were also given on 2. 2008 and 22. 2008, but the remarks were received only on 22. 2008. It could also be seen that representation was received from the Government to the Collectorate on 31. 2008, parawar remarks were called for from the Sponsoring Authority on 2. 2008, but the remarks were received from the Sponsoring authority on 12. 2008. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has brought to the notice of this Court that between 2. 2008 and 12. 2008, 9th and 10th were holidays,. Excepting these two days, there were intervening days which were actually noticed as delay. In so for as the said delay is concerned, the State has no explanation to offer and hence this delay in the opinion of this Court is unreasonable and hence in the absence of any explanation, the Court has to necessarily quash the order under challenge. Accordingly, the detention order is set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in C.O.C.No.71/2007 dated 112. 2007, The detenu, namely, Ramar, who is now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.