S. Manikumar, J.

1. Father of the detenu, Venkatesh @ Maangai, has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 1st respondent in M.H.S. Confdl No.01/2014 dated 02.01.2014, quash the same, and set his son aged about 24 years, at liberty.

2. Assailing the correctness of the order of detention, Mr. Malaikani, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:-

The detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in three cases. The first adverse case has been registered in Cr.No.203/2013, under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Tirunelveli City Town Police Station. The second adverse case has been registered in Cr.No.172/2013, under Sections 294(b) and 506 (ii) IPC on the file of Thevarkulam Police Station and the third adverse case has been registered in Cr.No.440/2013, under Sections 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Manur Police Station. The ground case has been registered in Cr.No.320/2013 under Sections 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Thalaiyuthu Police Station.

3. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai, Second respondent herein, has failed to consider the representation, dated 22.01.2014 sent by the petitioner, in time. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli, Detaining Authority, 1st respondent, without any material, has mechanically arrived at the subjective satisfaction and passed the detention order. There is a delay in considering the representation. Facts of similar cases referred in the detention order, particularly Cr.M.P.No.4141 of 2011 and Cr.M.P.No.7150 of 2013, considered by the Detaining Authority, are totally different to the ground case of the detenu.

4. Though this ground has not been raised in the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been arrested on 23.11.2013, in connection with the ground case. He has been produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. III, Tirunelveli and remanded. His remand period was due to expire on 03.01.2014. When the live link between the arrest on 23.11.2013 and commission of any prejudicial activity no longer existed, and when there was no need to detain him, after a long delay, i.e., on 02.01.2014, detention order has been passed. According to the learned counsel, no explanation has been offered by the detaining authority either in the grounds of detention nor in the affidavit and hence the order of detention is vitiated on the ground of delay in passing the said detention order. For the abovesaid reasons, learned counsel prayed to set aside the Detention Order.

5. On the other hand, based the counter affidavit filed by the Detaining Authority, Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the impugned Detention Order has been passed after following the procedure and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there was compelling necessity, and in order to prevent the detenue, from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is no delay in considering the representation sent on behalf of the detenu, as contended by the petitioner. Further, copies of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement enclosed at pages 147 to 157 and FIR at page nos.135 and 137 of the booklet, would reveal that the detenu had acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the facts relating to the adverse cases and the ground case are sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that if the detenu is allowed to remain at large, he would indulge in further activities in future, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. He further submitted that when the petitioner has not raised any ground of delay in passing the order, either in the representation or in th