Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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 2nd respondent dated 23.10.2013 passed in Memo No.1417/BDFGISSV/2013. 2. The ground cases alleged against the detenu are one registered on 1.9.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, M.3 Puzhal Police Station in three cases i.e., (i) Crime No.1489 of 2013 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 448, 336, 392, 397 and 506(2) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, (ii) Crime No.1490 of 2013 for offence under Section 147, 148, 294(b), 448, 392, 397 and 506(2) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and (iii) Crime No.1491 of 2013 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 448, 336, 392, 397 and 506(2) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. 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 23.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 2.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 4.12.2013; remarks were called on 4.12.2013 and only on 7.1.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on 7.1.2014; the Under Secretary dealt with on 7.1.2014, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 8.1.2014; on 17.1.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 24.1.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on 27.1.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 20 days between 4.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 7.1.2014, 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 more than 20 days between 4.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 7.1.2014, 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 detenu'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 dated 23.10.2013 in No.1417/BDFGISSV/2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Dinesh in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.