JUDGMENT : K. Kalyanasundaram, J. Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order passed in M.H.S.Confdl.No. 112/2020, dated 26.11.2020, on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's husband i.e., Ramaiah, aged about 35 years, son of Esakkiappan, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. 1. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Ramaiah, son of Esakkiappan, aged about 35 years, challenging the detention order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.112/2020, dated 26.11.2020, passed by the second respondent, branding him as “Drug Offender” as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. Mr. N. Pragalathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would argue that even though the petitioner has raised several grounds, he has confined his arguments only to the delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedural safeguards guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed in this case and there is unexplained and inordinate delay in disposal of the petitioner's representation, which would vitiate the impugned order of detention. 3. Mr. K. Dinesh Babu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that after satisfying with the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority has passed the detention order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the detention order. It is also stated that even if there is any delay in disposal of the representation, it has not caused any prejudice to the rights of the detenu and hence, prayed for dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. 4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. In the instant case, the proforma furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would indicate that as against the impugned detention order, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 08.12.2020 and it was received on 11.12.2020. Remarks were called for on the same day i.e.11.12.2020 and it was received on 28.12.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 29.12.2020. Remarks were called for on the same day i.e.11.12.2020 and it was received on 28.12.2020. The Deputy Secretary dealt with the matter on 29.12.2020. The concerned Minister dealt with the matter on 09.01.2021 and the representation came to be rejected on 11.01.2021. It is seen that in between 29.12.2020 and 09.01.2021, there was a delay of eight days, after excluding the Government Holidays of four days, in considering the petitioner's representation. 6. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Rajammal vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in 1999 (1) SCC 417 , wherein the Apex Court has observed and held that it is for the Authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposal of the representation and if any delay was caused on account of nay indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. 7. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the delay of eight days in considering the representation of the petitioner has not been properly explained by the respondents. Hence, in our considered view, the detention order is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay by following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court referred supra. 8. In fine, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.112/2020, dated 26.11.2020, passed by the second respondent, is set aside. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Ramaiah, son of Esakkiappan, aged about 35 years, who is now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence or custody or detention is required in connection with any other case.