ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. ON THE GROUND THAT THERE HAS BEEN INORDINATE DELAY IN CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION MADE AGAINST A DETENTION ORDER, A WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT ON CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS PROCESS AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO DELAY AS SUCH AND DISMISSED THE PETITION. NO OTHER POINT WAS URGED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT FOR CONSIDERATION. IN THIS APPEAL AGAINST THAT ORDER IT IS URGED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DUE CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE DELAY IN CONSIDERATION OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY HIM AGAINST THE DETENTION. ON BEHALF OF THE STATE AN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED BY R. BALAKRISHNAN, SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU SETTING OUT THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT OF THE FILE PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE US. IT IS STATED THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT VARIOUS LEVELS BEFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION. IT IS STATED THAT THE MATTER HAD BEEN IN ACTIVE CONSIDERATION THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD IN QUESTION.

3. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE