JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Petitioner is the brother-in-law of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 05.04.2013 made in C.3.D.O. No: 19/2013 passed by the 3rd respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a ‘Black Marketeer’ and detained under The Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as Act 7 of 1980. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 05.04.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl. No. Police Station & Section of Law Crime No. 1. Civil Supplies CID, 6 (4) of TNSC (RDCS) Krishnagiri Unit – Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) Cr. No: 395 of 2010 of E.C. Act 1955. 2. Civil Supplies CID, 6 (4) of TNSC (RDCS) Vellore Unit – Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) Cr. No: 54 of 2012 of E.C. Act 1955. 3. Civil Supplies CID, 6 (4) of TNSC (RDCS) Krishnagiri Unit – Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) Cr. No: 259 of 2012 of E.C. Act 1955. 3. In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 30.03.2013 night, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies, CID, Vellore Unit, in Crime No. 71 of 2013, on 31.03.2013 at 03.00 hours, under Sections 6 (4) of TNSC (R.D.C.S.) Order 1982 r/w. 7 (1) a (ii) of E.C. Act 1955. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No: IV, Vellore, and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of Commodities essential to the community under the Public Distribution System, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition. 4. Amidst several grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused on the ground that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation which would render the detention order vitiated. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us. 6. 4. Amidst several grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused on the ground that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation which would render the detention order vitiated. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us. 6. It is seen that the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 20.04.2013, which was received on 23.04.2013, Remarks were called for on 25.04.2013 and the remarks were received on 27.05.2013. Though after the remarks were received the file has moved very swiftly, admittedly, there was inordinate delay of nearly 32 days in submitting the remarks. The respondents have not come out with any explanatory statement for the inordinate delay of 32 days in receiving the remarks. Such a delay would definitely deprive the detenu of his right to make an effective representation before the appropriate authority. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated in law. 7. Accordingly the impugned detention order passed by the 3rd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Kutty @ Mahendran S/o. Chinna Paiya Goundar, made in C3. D.O. No: 19/2013 dated 05.04.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.