Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The petitioner himself is the detenu. He has been detained by the order of detention dated 111. 2007 passed by the first respondent branding him as a Drug Offender, in exercise of the powers conferred under 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Challenging the above said order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed. 2. The order of detention in question came to be passed in view of the involvement of the detenu in four adverse cases and one ground case involving the offense under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. .3. Challenging the order of detention Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the samples of ganja taken from the petitioner on 010. 2007 was sent to the Court only on 010. 2007 and the same was received by the Court on 110. 2007. The delay in sending the samples of contraband vitiated the order of detention. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that in the order of remand extension produced at Page 67 of the Booklet, does not indicate as to whether the detenu himself was produced at the time of extension of remand. In the absence of any proof that the detenu/accused himself was produced and his remand was extended, the order of detention is vitiated. In support of her submission, she relied upon the decision reported in ( 2008 (3) CTC 414 ) Parimaladevi @ Sharmiladevi Vs. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 and another. 5. We have also heard Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing on behalf of the respondents. 6. We have carefully perused the submissions made on either side and perused the records available on record. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, for the purpose of passing the order of detention, the detaining authority must be satisfied in regard to the involvement of the detenu in the offense and should found him indulging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, for the purpose of passing the order of detention, the detaining authority must be satisfied in regard to the involvement of the detenu in the offense and should found him indulging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. As to whether the samples seized from the detenu in the ground case has been sent to the Court immediately or with delay is not the matter for the detaining authority to consider and form its subjective satisfaction to pass the order of detention. Hence, the first contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the first contention is rejected. .7. Insofar as the second submission is concerned, it is true that this court had quashed the order of detention in the judgment reported in a case where there were two accused involved in a crime and the order of remand does not disclose the fact that the accused, who was actually produced for remand and the order of remand also does not contain any crime number. In the absence of proof as to the detenu who was being produced before the court for remand, the awareness of the detaining authority that the detenu was in remand was nothing but non application of mind and unsupported by any material. However, in the present case, the detenu was the sole accused in the ground case and in the order of remand extension, both the crime number as well the name of the detenu were mentioned. In such circumstances, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case. The detaining authority was aware of the fact that in the ground case, the detenu himself was produced before the Court and his judicial remand was extended subsequently and on the date when the detaining authority was considering to pass the order of detention, the detenu was in remand as per the orders of the court of law. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 8. For the above said reasons, we are not in agreement with any of the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the order of detention warrants no interference by this court. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 8. For the above said reasons, we are not in agreement with any of the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the order of detention warrants no interference by this court. Therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. No costs.