Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to an order of detention made by the second respondent in C.O.C.No.24/2007, dated 212. 2007, branding the detenu Anbalagan, the friend of the petitioner, as Bootlegger and detaining him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition and the order under challenge are perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Admittedly, on the strength of the materials made available by the Sponsoring Authority pertaining to 8 adverse cases, namely Crime Nos.14/2007, 75/2007 and 122/2007 registered by Kodavasal Police Station, Crime Nos.277/2007, 346/2007, 507/2007, 606/2007 and 656/2007 registered by Thiruvarur PEW under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Prohibition Act and a ground case in Crime No.658/2007 registered by Thiruvarur PEW and the other materials, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of those materials and after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public health and order, has branded him as Bootlegger and has made the order under challenge. 4. Advancing arguments in support of the petition, the learned counsel inter-alia has made two submissions:The order under challenge came to be passed on 212. 2007. A post-detention representation was made on 29.01.2008, but rejection of such representation was served upon the detenu only on 20.03.2008 and thus, there was an inordinate and unexplained delay, which has caused prejudice to the detenu and hence the order of detention has got to be set aside. Secondly, in the ground case in Crime No.658 of 2007 of Thiruvarur PEW, the case was actually registered at about 14.45 hours on 112. 2007. The arrest intimation was prepared at about 12.40 hours, which contained the crime number also and thus, it would clearly indicate that a clarification was necessitated, but the Detaining Authority has not called for any clarification, but has passed the order of detention and under these circumstances, for the above reasons, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 5. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions. 6. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and looking into the materials available, the court is of the considered opinion that the order under challenge has got to be quashed. 5. The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the above contentions. 6. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and looking into the materials available, the court is of the considered opinion that the order under challenge has got to be quashed. It is not in controversy that the order came to be passed by the second respondent on the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority and also on the strength of the materials available, terming the detenu as Bootlegger. It is needless to say that in a given case like this, before recording subjective satisfaction, the Authority is duty bound to go through the entire materials and then only, he should pass the order. In the instant case, the ground case was registered by Thiruvarur PEW on 112. 2007. The detenu was found in possession of illicit arrack and hence he was arrested, as per the arrest card in page 81 of the booklet, at about 12.40 hours. As could be seen from the copy of the F.I.R., the case was registered at about 14.45 hours. If the case was actually registered at about 14.45 hours, the arrest card, which was prepared at about 12.40 hours could not have contained the crime number, but in the instant case, it contained so. If the materials were scrutinized carefully, the Detaining Authority should have called for clarification, but failed to do so. Thus, it would be indicative of the fact of non application of mind. 7. The added circumstance is the delay that has been caused. The order was passed on 212. 2007 and a representation was made on 29.01.2008. As could be seen from the available materials, it is not in controversy that rejection order was served upon the detenu on 20.03.2008. All the dates pertaining to the representation, consideration, rejection and service of the same were placed before the court by the respondents side. When the placed materials are perused, it would indicate that on the representation, the remarks were called for on 01.02.2008, reminder was made on 08.02.2008, but remarks were received from the Sponsoring Authority only on 06.03.2008 and thus, a delay for more than a month was noticed. Further, such an inordinate delay remained unexplained. Under these circumstance, no doubt, it has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu. Further, such an inordinate delay remained unexplained. Under these circumstance, no doubt, it has caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, both the grounds are sufficient to quash the order. 8. Accordingly, the detention order is set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.