V.S. Sirpurkar, J.: In this petition, challenge is to the order of detention dated 11.1.2002 passed against the detenu Krishnan branding him as goonda and directing preventive detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The first respondent has passed that order branding the said detenu as a goonda. 2. The only point that is pressed in service by Mr. Manivasakam, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu’s representation has not been dealt with, with the usual and required alacrity and it has been disposed of in a most casual and delayed manner. He points out that the representation is dated 28.1.2002 and it was disposed of only on 15.4.2002 and the information reached him on 19.4.2002. According to the learned counsel, there is an enormous delay of 3 months which could not have been justified at all. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor showed us the file and pointed out that the representation was received by the concerned authority on 30.1.2002 and the remarks were called on 31.1.2002. Those remarks were received back only on 4.4.2002 and thereafter, those remarks were considered by the Under Secretary on 5.4.2002, Deputy Secretary on 8.4.2002 and Minister for Law on 11.4.2002 and ultimately, the Hon’ble Minister for Law rejected the representation on 15.4.2002 which order was served on 19.4.2002. According to the Additional Public Prosecutor, the delay stands explained. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the delay between 31.1.2002 when the remarks were called and 4.4.2002 when the remarks were received does not stand explained. For that the learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the representation was received by the Collectorate only on 4.2.2002 and the Collector called parawise remarks from the Sponsoring Authority on the same day. However, the Sponsoring Authority sent the remarks only on 22.3.2002, i.e., after full one month and 18 days. There is no explanation as to why the Sponsoring Authority took such heavy time of one month and 18 days for making simple parawise remarks. Even otherwise, there is also no explanation as to why the Hon’ble Minister for Law took four days time for rejecting the representation. There is also no explanation as to why the Deputy Secretary failed to put the matter before the Hon’ble Minister when he had completed the formality on 8.4.2002. Even otherwise, there is also no explanation as to why the Hon’ble Minister for Law took four days time for rejecting the representation. There is also no explanation as to why the Deputy Secretary failed to put the matter before the Hon’ble Minister when he had completed the formality on 8.4.2002. It seems that the matter was put before the Hon’ble Minister only on 11.4.2002 and ultimately the order came to be passed on 15.4.2002. It is obvious that the representation has been dealt with casually and without any alacrity which is required, thereby hampering the detenu, his important right under Art.22(5) of the Constitution of India. The further detention is therefore rendered illegal. 4. Rule is made absolute. The order of detention dated 11.1.2002 is set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu Krishnan is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.