Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Bootlegger" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Cr.M.P.No.19/Bootlegger/2013, dated 22.11.2013. 2. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police in Kangayam Prohibition Enforcement Wing Police Station in Crime No.717/2013 under Section 4(1) (aaa) r/w 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, Sections 4, 6 & 7 of Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules, 2000 and Sections 420, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code 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 22.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 21.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 02.01.2014; remarks were called on 06.01.2014 and only on 19.02.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on 20.02.2014; the Under Secretary dealt with on 20.02.2014, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 20.02.2014; on 25.02.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 25.02.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on 26.02.2014 and served on the detenu on 28.02.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 29 days between 06.01.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 19.02.2014, 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. 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 Cr.M.P.No.19/Bootlegger/2013dated 22.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Saravanakumarin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.