Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. Aggrieved by the order of detention dated 14. 2007 made in Memo No.164/BDFGISSV/2007 passed by the second respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) detaining one Vijay Kumar, son of Ekambaram, branding him as a Goonda, the petitioner, who is the friend of the detenu, filed the above petition seeking to quash the order of detention and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chenani, before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. On 4. 2007, one Eswardoss was confronted by the detenu and three others, while he was proceeding at the junction of Dhadha Muthiyappan Street and Nattu Pillaiyar Koil Street, and at the knife point, demanded money and when the said Eswardoss resisted, the detenu and others took away Rs.190/- and also snatched his cell phone and gold ring and threatened him with dire consequences. Petrified, the said Eswardoss raised hue and cry, on hearing which, the public gathered and attempted to catch hold of the detenu and others. On seeing the public, the detenu and others wielded their knives and also hurled soda bottles all over the place, which created terror and panic at the spot. Taking advantage of the said situation, when the detenu and others attempted to escape, the police with the aid of the public, apprehended them at the spot. On the basis of the complaint given by the said Eswardoss, a case was registered in Crime No.129 of 2007 under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(2) I.P.C. 3. The second respondent, taking note of the above case as a ground case and finding that there are two adverse cases, having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention only on the ground of delay in preparing the rejection order. 5. 1. Before delving into the issue relating to the delay as contended above, it would be apt to refer the law on the point. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order of detention only on the ground of delay in preparing the rejection order. 5. 1. Before delving into the issue relating to the delay as contended above, it would be apt to refer the law on the point. 5. 2. Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India suggests that the obligation of the Government is to offer the detenu an opportunity of making a representation against the order, before it is confirmed according to the procedure laid down under the relevant provisions of law, vide K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 . 5. 3. The right to representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India includes right to expeditious disposal by the State Government. Expedition is the rule and delay defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vide Ram Sukrya Mhatre v. R.D. Tyagi, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 65. 5. 4. Any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal, vide Tara Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (1980) 2 SCC 321 and Raghavendra Singh v. Supdt., Distt. Jail, (1986) 1 SCC 650 . 5. It is a constitutional obligation of the Government to consider the representation forwarded by the detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed by Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be taken on the representation, the words “as soon as may be” in clause (5) of Article 22 convey the message that the representation should be considered and disposed of at the earliest. But that does not mean that the authority is pre-empted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned in the disposal of the representation. The court can certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned due to permissible reasons or unavoidable causes. If delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation, such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned. Even the reason that the Minister was on tour and hence there was a delay of five days in disposing of the representation was rejected by the Apex Court holding that when the liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is involved, the absence of the Minister at head quarters is not sufficient to justify the delay, since the file could be reached the Minister with utmost promptitude in cases involving the vitally important fundamental right of a citizen, vide Rajammal v. State of T.N., (1999) 1 SCC 417 . 6. Coming to the case on hand, admittedly, objecting to the order of detention dated 14. 2007, a representation was made on behalf of the detenu on 16. 2007, which was received by the Government on 16. 2007. Remarks were called for from the detaining authority on 16. 2007, which was received by the detaining authority on 16. 2007. The detaining authority, in turn, called for parawar remarks from the sponsoring authority on 16. 2007 and on receipt of the same on 26. 2007, the detaining authority sent it to the Government on 26. 2007 and the same was received on 26. 2007. Thereafter, the file was submitted on 26. 2007 and on the same day, it was considered by the Under Secretary and Additional Secretary. The file was considered by the Minister on 26. 2007. However, the rejection letter was prepared on 7. 2007, after a delay of six days, which is not properly explained. Even taking note of the intervening holidays, viz., 30.6.2007 and 7. 2007 (being Saturday and Sunday), the delay of four days in preparing the order of rejection, is admittedly unexplained and inexcusable. Thereafter, the order of rejection was sent on 7. 2007 and served on the detenu on 7. 2007. 7. Even taking note of the intervening holidays, viz., 30.6.2007 and 7. 2007 (being Saturday and Sunday), the delay of four days in preparing the order of rejection, is admittedly unexplained and inexcusable. Thereafter, the order of rejection was sent on 7. 2007 and served on the detenu on 7. 2007. 7. At this juncture, a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Kundanbhai Dulabhai Sheikh v District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, (1996) 3 SCC 194 is apposite: "In spite of law laid down above by this Court repeatedly over the past three decades, the Executive, namely, the State Government and its officers continue to behave in their old, lethargic fashion and like all other files rusting in the Secretariat for various reasons including red-tapism, the representation made by a person deprived of his liberty, continue to be dealt with in the same fashion. The Government and its officers will not give up their habit of maintaining a consistent attitude of lethargy. So also, this Court will not hesitate in quashing the order of detention to restore the ‘liberty and freedom’ to the person whose detention is allowed to become bad by the Government itself on account of his representation not being disposed of at the earliest.” 8. That apart, it is a settled law that there should not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the disposal of representation would be a breach of the constitutional imperative and it would render the continued detention impermissible and illegal, vide K.M. Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 . 9. In the instant case, there is delay of four days in preparing the order of rejection on the detenu, as referred to above, and the same, in our considered opinion, vitiates the impugned order of detention. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this petition. In the result, the order of detention dated is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.