JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 11.01.2014 made in C3/D.O./03/2014, passed by the second 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 (Central Act 7 of 1980). 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 11.01.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following case:- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1. Chennai CSCID Crime No.323/2013 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order, 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act, 1955 3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 31.12.2013 at 03.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, CSCID, Cuddalore, in Crime No.362 of 2013 for the offences under Section 6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) 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.I, Cuddalore on 31.12.2013 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 public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 20.01.2014, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 11.01.2014 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 20.01.2014 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 27.01.2014, for which the remarks called on 28.01.2014 were received on 07.02.2014. On submission of the file on 13.02.2014, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Additional Secretary on 14.02.2014 and by Secretary (CF & CP) and Secretary (Law) on 17.02.2014 and 18.02.2014 respectively and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 19.02.2014. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 19.02.2014. 7. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 8 days, namely, between 28.01.2014 and 07.02.2014 (excluding the holidays on 01.02.2014 and 02.02.2014), which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated. 8. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in C3/D.O./01/2014 dated 11.01.2014, is set aside. The detenu – Syed Ali, S/o.Abdul Hameed, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.