Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This petition seeking writ of Habeas Corpus challenges the order of second respondent made on 1. 2008 in D.O.No.3/2008-C2 whereby the order of detention of one Jeeva, wife of the petitioner was made by the second respondent terming her as a Bootlegger, as defined under Act 14 of 1982. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused and the order under challenge is also perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State. 3. Admittedly, on the strength of recommendations made by the Sponsoring authority by placing materials pertaining to five adverse cases registered in (1) Crime Nos.51 of 2006 ,82 of 2006, 214 of 2007, 298 of 2007 and 408 of 2007 of Dusi Police Station under the provision of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and one ground case in Crime No.470 of 2007 under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, the detaining authority has recorded a finding that it has arrived at a subjective satisfaction on the materials available to hold that the activities of the detenue were prejudicial to the public order and peace and hence she was to be termed as Bootlegger and apart from that in order to prevent her from indulging in such activities in future, a necessity arose to pass the order of detention and accordingly made the said order of detention which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions: The order of detention was passed on 10.01.2008 terming the detenue as Bootlegger, that a representation was given on 30.1.2008 and the order of rejection was served on the detenue on 22. 2008, and hence there was a huge and inordinate delay and it has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu and therefore the detention order has got to be set aside. Learned counsel would further urge that the complainant one Chakkravathi in ground case was referred to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Kancheepuram for treatment to the duty doctor and he has also complained about the burning sensation in his eyes and stomach due to consumption of the illicit arrack which he purchased from the said Jeeva and in that connection, a drunkenness certificate was also issued by the duty doctor. But, the said drunkenness certificate was not served upon him, despite representation made by the detenu, apart from that, the drunkenness certificate without verification, did not speak anything about the burning sensation in his eyes and the stomach, as pointed out in the order of detention. Thirdly, the ground case incident took place on 12. 2007 and the detenu was arrested and she was also produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court and there was also a report submitted to the Court to that effect along with the requisition to send the samples to the analyst, but only from the available material, it is quite clear that the samples were actually placed before the Court only on 112. 2007, which would be indicative of the fact that even a requisition for sending the samples were given on 12. 2007, the samples were not placed before the Court and hence, it is a fit case where clarification should have been called for by the detaining authority from the sponsoring authority, but it has failed to do so. Thirdly, the translation version in page 29 of the booklet did not convey what was actually found in the English version found in Page 28 and that was found to be different and hence the detenue was prevented from making effective representation and on that ground, the detention order has got to be quashed. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor on the above contentions and looked into the materials available. 6. It is not in controversy that the order of detention came to be passed on 1. 2008 by the detaining authority on the strength of the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority and five adverse cases were noticed along with one ground case and materials were also placed. It is pertinent to point out that the detenue in the ground case was arrested on 12. 2007 and a case has been registered in Crime No.470 of 2007 by the Dusi police Station under the provisions of the Prohibition Act. On the same day, at the time of production of accused before the concerned Judicial Magistrate,I, Cheyyar, a request was also made for sending the samples of the illicit arrack alleged to have been seized from the detenue to the Chemical analyst. On the same day, at the time of production of accused before the concerned Judicial Magistrate,I, Cheyyar, a request was also made for sending the samples of the illicit arrack alleged to have been seized from the detenue to the Chemical analyst. But, from the available materials, it is quite clear that the samples were placed before the Court only on 112. 2007. It is however, on the day when the request was made, the samples were not placed before the Magistrate concerned, but it was only in the custody of the Police Station. Hence, the authority should have asked for clarification , but the authority did not done so. Secondly, the post representation was made on 30.1.2008 and rejection of the same was served upon the detenue on 22. 2008. A perusal of the materials placed before the Court by the respondent side would clearly indicate that actually there was a delay caused in preparation and the matter was dealt with by the Minister for PWD and LAW on 12. 2008 and the rejection letter was prepared on 12. 2008 and thus there was intervening 6 days, out of which according to the petitioner, two days are holidays and in so for as four days is concerned, no proper or acceptable reason is forthcoming from the respondent side. Therefore it has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenue. Added further, in the instant case, the correction translation version of the page 28 was not given to the detenue, but they were found to be different. Once the object of giving translation version is to make the detenue to understand the contents of the document. In the instant case, the above contention was not only correct, but it would also mislead the detenue and thus it has prevented the detenue from making effective representation. On the above grounds, the order of detention has got to be necessarily quashed and accordingly quashed. Hence the order of detention is vitiated. 7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in D.O.No.03/2008-C2 dated 1. 2008. The detenu, namely, Jeeva, who is now confined at Special Prison for Women, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless her presence is required in connection with any other case.