Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent made in C3/D.O.No.112/2007, dated 212. 2007, terming Vijaya, the mother-in-law of the petitioner, as Bootlegger and detaining her under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition and also the order under challenge are perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents on the contentions. 3. Concededly, the order under challenge, terming the detenu as Bootlegger, came to be passed by the second respondent on the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority, whereby Crime Nos.401/2006, 675/2006, 1274/2006, 111/07, 220/07, 461/07 and 968/07 registered by Tirupattur Taluk Police Station under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and a ground case also on the same provisions were noticed. After perusing the materials, the Detaining Authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction to hold that the detenu is the Bootlegger, since her activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and health and also in order to prevent her from indulging in such activities in future, she has got to be necessarily detained invoking the provisions under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. Accordingly, the order was passed, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel would submit that the order came to be passed on 212. 2007; that a representation was made on 1. 2008, but in remains unconsidered till 12. 2008 and that there was a long and inordinate delay, which has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu; that the Analysis report was received on 12. 2007 and after nearly about 20 days, the detention order has been passed and thus, it has caused prejudice to the detenu and hence the order under challenge has got to be quashed. 5. The court heard the learned counsel for the State on the above contentions. 6. The court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. The Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out to set aside the order. The learned counsel for the State placed all the particulars, which are also gone into. The order was passed on 212. 2007 and a representation was made on 10.01.2008. It is true, it was considered on 11.02.2008. The Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out to set aside the order. The learned counsel for the State placed all the particulars, which are also gone into. The order was passed on 212. 2007 and a representation was made on 10.01.2008. It is true, it was considered on 11.02.2008. After looking into the particulars, it would be quite clear that there was no delay noticed. The Additional Secretary dealt with the matter on 06.02.2008 and the same has also been received by the Law Ministry on 11.02.2008 and in the meanwhile, 09.02.2008 and 10.02.2008 were holidays. Hence the remaining period cannot be said to be delay. 7. So far as the second ground is concerned, the delay that was caused in the analysis can be a ground before the Court of criminal law and not before this Forum as a ground to set aside the order of detention, since what is expected to be considered by this court at the time of considering the habeas corpus petition is whether the Detaining Authority, with sufficient materials, has considered and passed orders and recorded a finding that he has arrived at subjective satisfaction, which in the opinion of the court, has been done. Under these circumstances, this petition requires an order of dismissal. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.