JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 1st respondent passed in Memo No.689/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 13.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. D-3 Ice House Police Station Crime No.1573/2012 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 2. D-3 Ice House Police Station Crime No.1834/2012 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 3. R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station Crime No. 587/2013 294(b), 341, 384, 427, 506(ii) IPC 4. Wallajahpet Police Station, Vellore District, Crime No.701/2013 176(3) Cr.P.C. @ 302, 201 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1320/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the question of delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation, which has not been properly explained by the respondents. Therefore, it would vitiate the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. On a perusal of the list informing the course of consideration of the petitioner's representation, it is seen that the Detention Order was passed on 13.08.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority and it was received by the competent authority on 25.10.2013; remarks were called on 25.10.2013 and only on 18.11.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 19.11.2013; the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 19.11.2013; on 20.11.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of fourteen days (14) days between 25.10.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 18.11.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding nine holidays, i.e. on 26th, 27th of October 2013 and 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 10th, 14th, 16th and 17th of November 2013. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. Therefore, it is apparent that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation and the same contradicts the requirement of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and the consequence thereof is in infringement of the right of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent in BDFGISSSV No.689/2013 dated 13.08.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Paulraj, aged 30 years in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.