Judgment :- S. Palanivelu, J. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Vembu, who has been detained under the order passed by the second respondent in proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.13 of 2007 dated 23.01.2008 branding him as a Boot-legger. He came to adverse notice of the police in 4 cases viz., in Cr.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Tiruchirappalli PEW Musiri at Thuraiyur under Section 4(1)(i) of T.N.P. Act 1937, Cr.No.542 of 2007 on the same police station under Section 4(1)(a) of T.N.P.Act 1937, and in Cr.Nos.54 of 2007 and 261 of 2007 on the file of Thottiam Police Station under Sections 4(1)(aa) of T.N.P.Act 1937 and 4(1)(a) r/w 4(1-A) T.N.P. Act 1937 respectively. 2. The Ground case in which he is said to have been arrested, had occurred on 111. 2007. The detenu is alleged to have been found in possession of country arrack mixed with poisonous substance in a plastic pot containing about 15 litres and another mud pot containing about 40 litres. He was arrested at 9.00 hours on 111. 2007 and a case was registered in Cr.No.898 of 2007 under Sections 4(1)(i), (aa) r/w 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937. Sample was collected and it was sent for Chemical analysis. The detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri on 111. 2007 itself and was remanded to judicial custody till 211. 2007. 3. A report dated 111. 2007 was received from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory in which it is stated that the sample contained ethyl alcohol, acids, esters, higher alcohols and aidehydes. It is also confirmed that the sample contained arrack mixed with atropine of 2.9 mg % w/v. Since it is found that the arrack seized from the detenu contained atropine, poisonous substance, the sponsoring authorities placed the materials before the detaining authority to detain the petitioner as a "Boot-legger". 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to the inordinate delay caused by the State Government in disposing of the representation made on behalf of the detenu. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the proforma containing the particulars as to the dates and disposal of the representation. The representation was sent on 2. 2008 which was received by the Government on 12. 2008. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted the proforma containing the particulars as to the dates and disposal of the representation. The representation was sent on 2. 2008 which was received by the Government on 12. 2008. On that date itself, remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority. Since the remarks were not received in time, two reminders were issued by the State Government on 22. 2008 and 22. 2008 and afterwards only on 3. 2008, remarks were received by the Government and thereafter further processes were undertaken. It is also mentioned in the proforma that the dates of public holidays are 12. 2008, 12. 2008, 22. 2008, 22. 2008, 3. 2008, 3. 2008, 3. 2008 and 3. 2008. Hence, there were as many as 12 working days intervening between 12. 2008 and 3. 2008. In the counter filed by the respondents, there is no explanation for the delay caused by the detaining authority in submitting the remarks which resulted in the disposal belatedly prejudicing the right of the detenu. In view of the above said inordinate and unexplained delay, the detention order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 23.01.2008 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.