Judgment : P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The above Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu by name Siva, challenging the order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 16.3.2002. The detenu is said to have been involved in five adverse cases besides a ground case registered in Crime No. 496 of 2002 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 392, 336, 427, 307 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The detenu is branded as a Goonda within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. He is involved in five criminal besides the ground case registered as Crime No. 496 of 2002 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 392, 336, 427, 407 and 506(ii), I.P.C. The detention order was passed by the detaining authority having been subjectively satisfied that the detenu is a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to pass an order of detention against him. The said order is now under challenge. 3. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the petitioner. 4. Wehave heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. The H.C.P. is liable to be allowed on the ground of failure to consider the representation submitted by the detenu expeditiously. 6. From the admitted dates of consideration, it is seen that the detenu had made a representation dated 13.4.2002 which was received by the Government on 26.4.2002. Though the file was submitted after receiving the remarks of the sponsoring authority on 30.4.2002, it reached the Deputy Secretary on 2.5.2002. However, the order rejecting the representation was passed only on 17.5.2002, the Minister having seen the file on 15.5.2002. There is an unexplained, inordinate delay between 2.5.2002 and 15.5.2002. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to explain the reasons for this inordinate delay. We are satisfied that the valuable right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India for an early consideration of his representation against the detention order has been infringed in this case. 7. In above circumstances, the detention order challenged in this H.C.P. is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The H.C.P. is allowed. 7. In above circumstances, the detention order challenged in this H.C.P. is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The H.C.P. is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in any other case.