Judgment :- A.K.Rajan, J. The father of the detenu is the petitioner. The detenu Prakash was detained by order dated 22.2.2003, based on two adverse cases apart from the ground case in Crime No.47/2003. On the basis of the materials placed before the detaining authority, the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detention of the petitioner is necessary for maintaining the public order and health. Therefore, the detenu was detained under Act 14/1982. The present Habeas Corpus Petition challenges the order of detention. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority has not considered the graver offence but considered only the lesser offence under Section 147 and 148 I.P.C. for arriving at the subjective satisfaction and hence, due to the non-consideration of the graver offence, the detention order is not legally sustainiable and hence liable to be quashed. 3. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court made in H.C.P.No.657/2003 dated 19.11.2003. In that case on the ground that only the lesser offence had been taken into account when grave offence was also there and the order of detention was quashed. Learned counsel relied on the said judgment and contended that on the same ground, the present impugned order is also liable to be quashed. 4. We are not able to agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. It is to be seen that there are two Sub- paragraphs in para 5 of the impugned detention order. In sub para (1) the offence relating to the ground case has been mentioned separately; and the graver offence is referred to in Sub-para (ii). That is the sub para(1) of para 5 refers to offences under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 506(ii) wherein the detaining authority has mentioned that there is imminent possibility for the detenu to come out on bail. In sub para (2) of para 5, the grounds of detention reads as follows: "I am aware that Thiru. Prakash has been remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruvallur on 08.02.2003. I am also aware that he is a remand prisoner lodged in Central Jail, Puzhal. His remand period is upto 21.02.2003 and again extended upto 7.3.2003. He has not filed any bail application so far. Prakash has been remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruvallur on 08.02.2003. I am also aware that he is a remand prisoner lodged in Central Jail, Puzhal. His remand period is upto 21.02.2003 and again extended upto 7.3.2003. He has not filed any bail application so far. But there is possibility of filing bail application and being enlarged on bail by the Criminal Court. I am also aware that in such cases, bail is granted after lapse of some time ........" 5. From the above, it is seen that the detaining authority has considered the graver offence and had stated that there is possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The Division Bench in the order referred to above has not considered this aspect. Hence, on the basis of that order, the impugned detention order, cannot be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there is a delay in considering the representation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given the particulars of the dates on which representation was considered. They are: Representation dated .. 18.3.2003 Representation received dated .. 19.3.2003 Remark called on dated .. 21.3.2003 Reminder dated .. 7.4.2003 Remarks received on dated .. 16.4.2003 File submitted on dated .. 17.4.2003 Under Secretary dated .. 21.4.2003 Additional/Deputy Secretary dated .. 21.4.2003 Minister for POE .. 22.4.2003 Rejected letter preparedon .. 23.4.2003 Rejection letter sent to the Superintendent Central Prison for service on .. 25.4.2003 Rejection letter served on .. 26.4.2003 COLLECTORATE Representation received from Government/Central Prison .. 26.3.2003 Parawar Remarks called for from the Sponsoring authority .. 26.3.2003 Remarks received from sponsority authority. .. 7.4.2003 7. From the above dates, it is seen that the Collectorate parawar remarks was called for by the sponsoring authority on 26.4.2003 and the remarks were received only on 7.4.2003. Between 26.3.2003 and 7.4.2003, there were 11 working days and 4 holidays. Hence, there is 7 days of unexplained delay. This unexplained delay in considering the representation violates the right guaranteed to any individual under Article 22 Clause 5 of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch as the valuable rights of the constitution has been violated, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed. This unexplained delay in considering the representation violates the right guaranteed to any individual under Article 22 Clause 5 of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch as the valuable rights of the constitution has been violated, the order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.