Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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 passed in Memo No.1660/2013 dated 19.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 S.12 Chitlapakkam Police Station, Cr.No.2093/2012 379 IPC 2 C-1, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Cr.No.291/2013 397 IPC 3 C-1, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Cr.No.315/2013 294(b), 341, 397, 506(ii) IPC 4 C-1, Sriperumbudur Police Station, Cr.No.894/2013 294(b), 506(ii), 394 and 397 IPC 5 S-11, Tambaram Police Station, Cr.No.1721/2013 457 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-11, Tambaram Police Station in Cr.No.1737/2013, for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 and 506(ii) IPC. 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 19.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 30.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 04.12.2013; remarks were called on the same day and only on 12.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on the same day but the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on 17.12.2013 and the Rejection letter was prepared on 18.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 19.12.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of six days [6 days] between 04.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 12.12.2013, the date on which remarks were received. 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 six days [6 days] between 04.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 12.12.2013, the date on which remarks were received. 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 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Poomalai @ Boopalan, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.