Judgment :- (Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the first respondent in his reference No.19/BDFGISV/2005, dated 30.03.2005, quash the same and set the detenu Murugan @ Pangali Murugan, son of Palraj, now detained in Central Prison, Madurai.) P. Sathasivam, J The petitioner by name Murugan @ Pangali Murugan, who has been detained as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, by the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 30.03.2005, challenges the same in this petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the foremost, contended that in view of the unexplained delay in disposal of the representation of the detenu, dated 04.05.2005, the order of detention passed by the first respondent cannot be sustained. 3. With reference to the above claim, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has furnished details regarding the disposal of the representation which shows that the representation of the detenu dated 04.05.2005 was received by the Government On 09.05.2005 and on the same day remarks were called for by the Government from the detaining authority and in turn, the remarks were received by the Government on 18.05.2005. Thereafter, the file was dealt with by the Additional/Deputy Secretary on 18.05.2005 and the concerned authority, namely Minister for Prohibition and Excise Department, passed orders on 19.05.2005. The rejection letter was prepared on 30.05.2005 and the same was sent to the Superintendent of Central Prison for service on 31.05.2005 and ultimately the rejection letter was served on 03.06.2005. 4. Regarding the delay between 09.05.2005 and 18.05.2005, the details furnished by the detaining authority would show that communication was received from the Government on 12.05.2005 and thereafter remarks were called for from the sponsoring authority on 13.05.2005 and on receipt of remarks from the sponsoring authority on 16.05.2005, the same was sent to the Government on 16.05.2005 itself, which was received by the Government on 18.05.2005. The said explanation is acceptable. 5. Coming to the delay between 19.05.2005 and 30.05.2005, it is not in dispute that decision was taken by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise Department on 19.05.2005, rejecting the representation of the detenu, however the rejection letter was prepared only on 30.05.2005. The said explanation is acceptable. 5. Coming to the delay between 19.05.2005 and 30.05.2005, it is not in dispute that decision was taken by the Minister for Prohibition and Excise Department on 19.05.2005, rejecting the representation of the detenu, however the rejection letter was prepared only on 30.05.2005. Even if we exclude the intervened holidays i.e. 21.052005, 22.05.2005, 28.05.2005 and 29.08.2005, we are of the view that the time taken by the officers for preparing the rejection letter cannot be accepted. In this regard, it is useful to refer a Division Bench decision of this Court (Principal Bench) reported in 2005 (4) CTC 17 (Latha vs. The Secretary to the Government). In the said decision, in similar circumstance, where the competent authority passed orders on the representation on 07.04.2005, the rejection letter was prepared by the officials and communicated to the detenu only on 18.04.2005, considering the mandate prescribed in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, the Bench concluded as under: "5..... Though the detaining authority has concluded that the detenu has to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 in view of his involvement in number of criminal cases, this Court has no other option except to quash the detention order on the ground that the decision on the representation was not communicated to the detenu within a reasonable time. The Courts have held that three days' time at every stage of disposal of the representation would be reasonable and beyond the same, the delay cannot be considered to be reasonable unless it is properly explained. It is also relevant to note that as observed earlier, unless the result of the Government's decision is communicated to the detenu, it cannot be claimed that the mandate prescribed in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been fulfilled effectively. It is the constitutional right of detenu to have his representation considered and hence, immediate action should be taken by the authorities concerned. It is well settled that the consideration of representation includes communication of the result of the same to the detenu within a reasonable time is a sufficient compliance of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In other words, after proper consideration without delay, the result has to be communicated to the detenu at the earliest point of time meaning thereby within a reasonable time. In other words, after proper consideration without delay, the result has to be communicated to the detenu at the earliest point of time meaning thereby within a reasonable time. As the particulars furnished show that though the Minister has passed order on 7.4.2005, the rejection letter was prepared only on 18.04.2005. There is no explanation at all for the delay from the person/persons concerned." 6. As rightly stated, it is the Constitutional right of the detenu to have his representation considered expeditiously and equally, the decision/action taken should also be communicated to the detenu within a reasonable time. In our case, we are satisfied that even though the concerned authority has passed orders on 19.05.2005, there is no justification for taking time in preparation of the rejection letter till 30.05.2005. We are satisfied that by the unexplained delay on the part of the respondents in disposal of the representation, there is no effective disposal in compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In the light of the particulars furnished and in view of the strict adherence to the Constitutional provisions, this Court has no other option except to quash the detention order. 7. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention, dated 30.03.2005, made in No.19/BDFGISV/2005, by the first respondent is quashed. The petitioner/detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in some other case.