Judgment :- R. MALA, J. The Petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, has filed this Petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 2nd Respondent in P.D.No.18/2012, dated 01.05.2012, branding her husband as a "Goonda" and ordering his detention at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli, under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The detenu has been termed as a Goonda on the ground that he is involved in seven adverse cases and in one ground case. 2. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised so many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention, he confined his arguments to the only one ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu, dated 18.05.2012. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation, dated 18.05.2012, has been received by the Government on 22.05.2012 and remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on the next day, i.e. 23.05.2012 but, however, remarks have been received by the Government only on 05.06.2012, after a delay 13 days. It is his further submission that though, as per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there were four intervening holidays and even after giving concession as to the intervened holidays, still there is a delay of 9 days, which remains unexplained and the unexplained delay in considering the representation of the detenu vitiates the detention order. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajammalvs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 417 . 3. Resisting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Government has received the representation on 22.05.2012 and that has been forwarded to the Detaining Authority, calling for remarks, on the next day, who in turn received the same on 24.05.2012 and that has been forwarded to the sponsoring authority on the same day, which has been received by the sponsoring authority on 26.05.2012 and remarks have been received by the detaining authority on 01.06.2012 and the same has been received by the government on 05.06.2012. Even though the above date particulars have not been mentioned in the pro-forma furnished to the Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor furnished those particulars after getting clarification from the respondents. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no delay in considering the representation of the detenu and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 5. As per the proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the representation of the detenu, dated 18.05.2012, which was received by the Government on 22.05.2012, remarks have been called for from the detaining authority on 23.05.2012. But, remarks have been received by the Government only on 05.062012 and thereafter the representation has been considered by the authorities concerned and rejected on 08.06.2012. From the above, it is clear that in between 23.05.2012 and 05.06.2012, there is a delay of 13 days. Even if we give concession to the four intervening holidays, namely 26.05.2012, 27.05.2012, 02.06.2012 and 03.06.2012, still there is a delay of nine days. 6. As per the version of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as soon as the Government received the representation, remarks have been called for from the detaining authority and in turn the detaining authority has called for para-war remarks from the sponsoring authority on 26.05.2012 and the sponsoring authority, though had received the same on 26.05.2012, sent the remarks only on 01.06.2012. Even as per the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is a delay of five days delay between 26.05.2012 and 01.06.2012. Though there were two intervening holidays, i.e. 26.05.2012 and 27.05.2012, still there is a delay of four days between 26.05.2012 and 01.06.2012 and this delay of four days has not been explained in the counter affidavit. At this juncture, it is pertinent to quote relevant paragraph from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajammal's case cited supra, which read as follows: "8. the position, therefore, now is that 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. 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. 9. Whathappened in this case was that the Government which received remarks from different authorities submitted the relevant files before the Under-Secretary for processing it on the next day. The Under-Secretary forwarded it to the Deputy Secretary on the next working day. thus there is some explanation for the delay till 9.2.1998. Thereafter the file was submitted before the Minister who received it while he was on tour. The Minister passed the order only on 14-2-1998. Though there is explanation for the delay till 9-2-1998, we are unable to find out any explanation whatsoever as for the delay which occurred thereafter. Merely stating that the Minister was on tour and hence he could pass orders only on 14-2-1998 is not justifiable explanation when the liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is involved. Absence of the Minister at the Headquarters 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." 7. As per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajammal'scase, number of days of delay is immaterial and what is to be considered is whether the delay caused has been properly explained by the authorities concerned. But, here four days delay has not been properly explained by the detaining authority. Hence applying the dictum laid down by the supreme Court in Rajammal'scase, we are inclined to quash the detention order. 8. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order, dated 01.05.2012, passed by the 2nd Respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case or cause.