Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to the order of the second respondent dated 1. 2008 made in C.O.C.No.01 of 2008, whereby the detenu Saibaba was termed as Bootlegger as defined under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. Affidavit in support of the petition is perused. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the order under challenge is perused. 3. On the strength of the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority along with the particulars and materials pertaining to four adverse cases in Crime Nos.314/07, 357/07, 406/07 and 495/2007 under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act of Vedaranyam Police Station and also one ground case in Crime No.579 of 2007 registered on 112. 2007, the detaining authority has recorded a finding that it has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu Sayeebaba were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public health and peace and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, he has got to be termed as Bootlegger and also a necessity arose in passing the order of detention under Act 14 of 1982 and accordingly made the order, which is under challenge in this petition. 4. Advancing his arguments in support of the petition, the learned counsel would submit that the order of detention came to be passed on 1. 2008 and the detenu was arrested in connection with the ground case in Crime 579/2007 on 112. 2007. A bail application was moved before the Court of Sessions, Nagapattinam, and an order was also passed, a copy of which is found in Page 50 of the booklet. When the request for bail was made, the same was objected to by the State inter alia stating that the detenu involved in four grave cases and hence steps have been taken to initiate proceedings against the detenu and this submission was also taken into consideration by the said Court while dismissing the said bail application. The order of dismissal made by the Court of Sessions, Nagapattinam, was placed in the hands of the detaining authority and it was also one of the materials placed and relied on document and incorporating the same should have impelled the detaining authority to pass the order under challenge. The order of dismissal made by the Court of Sessions, Nagapattinam, was placed in the hands of the detaining authority and it was also one of the materials placed and relied on document and incorporating the same should have impelled the detaining authority to pass the order under challenge. Under such circumstances, it has got to be termed that the authority had pre-determined view before passing such an order of detention. Secondly, a pre-detention representation was made on 212. 2007 and it was received by the detaining authority, but it was not considered and replied. Thirdly, a post representation was made on 21. 2008, and there has been huge and inordinate delay in disposing of the same and it was served upon the detenu only on 3. 2008. Therefore rejection order was served on the detenu with an inordinate delay and hence the order of detention has to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor on the above contentions. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made. The first contention that the authority had pre-determined view before passing the order, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the bail application was moved before the Court of Sessions, Nagapattinam. In the bail petition, the State had raised objections stating that the proceedings have been initiated against the detenu that it was a true state of affair and merely because the application was dismissed inter alia taking one of the ground, cannot be said to be a reason for impelling the detaining authority to pass an order of detention. The detaining authority has considered all the aspects of the matter, but this was not shown as a ground thereon to attack the order under challenge. Under such circumstances, it has got to be rejected. 7. Secondly, in so far as the pre-detention representation sent on 212. 2007, according to the State, no such representation was received. No material is placed before the Court to accept the contention that the same was received by the authority. Hence such a contention cannot be countenanced. 8. Insofar as the third contention is concerned, the Court is able to see some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the post representation was sent on 21. 2008 and the same was received by the authority on 21. 2008 and it was pending consideration. Hence such a contention cannot be countenanced. 8. Insofar as the third contention is concerned, the Court is able to see some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the post representation was sent on 21. 2008 and the same was received by the authority on 21. 2008 and it was pending consideration. The rejection letter sent by the Ministry was served upon the detenu only on 3. 2008. The dates during which the pre-representation was served, is also placed before the Court, from where it could be seen that after representation was received, remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 21. 2008, remarks were also sent on 21. 2007, but remarks were received only on 22. 2008. The intervening days, i.e., from 21. 2007 to 22. 2007, in the opinion of the Court, would certainly cause prejudice to the interest of the detenu. Though this Court is unable to see any force in the earlier two grounds, this Court finds some force in the last contention. Hence, that ground is suffice to quash the detention order. 9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in C.O.C.No. 01/2008 dated 1. 2008. The detenu, namely, Sayeebaba, who is now confined at Central Prison, Trichirappalli, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.