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 second respondent passed in No.1640/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 H4 Korukkupet Police Station Crime No.24/2012 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC 2 H4 Korukkupet Police Station Crime No.423/2013 341, 294(b), 385 and 506(ii) IPC 3 H1 Washermenpet Police Station Crime No.1060/2013 341, 384, 324, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 15.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, L&O, H4 Korukkupet Police Station in Crime No.560 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 384, 427, 336, 307 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 17.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 06.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 10.12.2013; remarks were called on 10.12.2013 and only on 24.01.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on 27.01.2014; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 27.01.2014; on 28.01.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 29.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on 31.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 20 days between 10.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 24.01.2014 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 10.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 24.01.2014 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 inNo.1640/BDFGISSV/2013 dated17.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Vinayagam @ Thoppu Vinayagam, S/o.Narayanan, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.