Judgment :- (Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as stated therein.) P.Sathasivam, J. The petitioner is mother of the detenu, who is detained as goonda under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Though several contentions have been raised questioning the order of detention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the foremost, submitted that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu dated 8.3.2005. With reference to the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced details. The particulars furnished to us show that the representation of the detenu was received by the Government on 21.3.2005, remarks called for on 22.3.2005 and remarks received from the Collectorate on 1.4.2005. Thereafter, the file was dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 8.4.2005. The Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed order rejecting the representation of the detenu on 8.4.2005. However, the rejection letter was prepared only on 18.4.2005 and the same was sent to the detenu on 20.4.2005 and served to the detenu on 22.4.2005. Though the competent authority viz., the Minister for Prohibition and Excise passed the order on 8.4.2005, there is no explanation at all for taking time till 18.4.2005 for preparation of the rejection letter. Even if intervening holidays are excluded, we are of the view that the time taken for preparation of the rejection letter of the Minister for Prohibition and Excise is on the higher side. 3. It is settled law that representation of the detenu or his relative has to be considered and disposed of expeditiously in order to satisfy the right provided under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution. Inasmuch as there was enormous delay, which caused prejudice to the detenu in consideration of his representation by the authority concerned, it vitiates the impugned detention order dated 12.3.2005. On this ground, the detention order is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.