Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the uncle 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 second respondent passed in BDFGISSV.No.143/2013 dated 14.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station, Crime No.784/2011 341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC 2 Thirukalukundram Police Station, Crime No.7/2012 379 IPC 3 Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station, Crime No.856/2012 363, 307, 506(ii) IPC r/w 149 IPC 4 Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station, Crime No.208/2013 341, 324, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 14.09.2013 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thirukalukundram Police Station, in Crime No.864/2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 353, 307 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 14.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 10.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 13.12.2013; remarks were called on 16.12.2013 and only on 23.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 30.12.2013; the Under Secretary dealt with it dated Nil, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 30.12.2013; on 02.01.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejection letter prepared on 10.01.2014 and rejected it on 10.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on 11.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 16.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 23.12.2013, 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 more than 10 days between 16.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 23.12.2013, 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 BDFGISSV.No.143/2013 dated 14.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely, Paranthaman @ Ajitin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.