Judgment :- A.K. RAJAN, J. The detenu's wife is the petitioner herein. 2. The detenu is found to have been involved in four previous cases of prohibition offences and on 22.11.2002 at 10.30 house, he was found to be selling illicit arrack. A person by name Kannan consumed the arrack, found giddiness and on his complaint, the Authorities raided the place and found Murugan, the detenu, selling illicit arrack and a case was registered in Crime No.777 of 2002. On the basis of analysis, the arrack was found to contain poisonous substance and therefore, the detaining authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction that there is an absolute necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Therefore, he passed the impugned order, whereby, the detenu was detained. Challenging the detention order, this writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the representation, abruptly,the rejection order was served on the detenu. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed the following particulars as to how the representation was disposed of by the Government: Representation dated : 6.1.2003 Representation received on : 13.1.2003 Remarks called on : 14.1.2003 Representation received by the Collectorate from the Government/Central Prison on : 20.1.2003 Parawar Remarks called for from Sponsoring Authority on : 21.1.2003 Remarks received from the Sponsoring Authority on : 22.1.2003 Report sent to the Government by the Collectorate on : 23.1.2003 Remarks received on : 27.1.2003 File submitted on : 28.1.2003 Under Secretary dealt with the file on : 29.1.2003 Additional/Deputy Secretary dealt with the file on : 29.1.2003 Minister for Law dealt with the file on : 31.1.2003 Rejection letter prepared on : 6.2.2003 Rejection letter served on : 8.2.2003 6. From the above, it is seen that the Minister for Law has signed the rejection order on 31.1.2003, but the rejection order was prepared only on 6.2.2003,even though when the file was sent to the Minister, a draft letter of rejection was also sent. Thereafter, once the Minister has signed it, the office has to simply type it and send the rejection letter. But, for that purpose, the office has taken a time of six days. There is no satisfactory explanation for that delay. Thereafter, once the Minister has signed it, the office has to simply type it and send the rejection letter. But, for that purpose, the office has taken a time of six days. There is no satisfactory explanation for that delay. Hence, we are satisfied that the detention order is vitiated for not considering the representation expeditiously as required under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, the order of detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the writ petition Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.