Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother-in-law of the detenue. The detenue has been branded as a "Drug Offender" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.M.P.No.46/D.O./Salem City/2013 dated 12.11.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 Pallapatty Police Station Crime No.857/2012 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act 1985 2 Pallapatty Police Station Crime No.858/2012 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act 1985 The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered by the Inspector of Police, Pallapatty Police Station in Crime No.753/2013 for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act 1985. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused 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 12.11.2013; the detenue made a representation to the detaining authority on 13.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 16.12.2013; remarks were called on 16.12.2013 and only on 26.12.2013, remarks were received and file was submitted on 27.12.2013; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on the same day; the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on 02.01.2014 and rejected it on 10.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenue on 17.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of eight (8) days between 16.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 26.12.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding holidays. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of eight (8) days between 16.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 26.12.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding holidays. 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 second respondent in C.M.P.No.46/D.O./Salem City/2013, dated 12.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenue, namely Vasanthain this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case.