Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the cousin 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 C.M.P.No.25/B.L.A./C2/2013 dated 18.12.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases : S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 Attur P.E.W.Crime No.453/2012 4(1)(aa), 4(1-A) TNP Act 2 Gangavalli Police Station Crime No.368/2013 4(1)(aa), 4(1-A) TNP Act 3 Gangavalli Police Station Crime No.382/2013 4(1)(aa), 4(1-A) TNP Act The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 15.11.2013 by the Attur Prohibition Enforcement Wing in Crime No.378/2013 for the offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition 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 18.12.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 28.01.2014 and it was received by the competent authority on 29.01.2014; remarks were called on 30.01.2014 and only on 13.02.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 13.02.2014; on 21.02.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 24.02.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on 27.02.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 30.01.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 13.02.2014, 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 10 days between 30.01.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 13.02.2014, 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 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 inC.M.P.No.25/B.L.A./C2/2013 dated 18.12.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Kannan, S/o Periasamy, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.