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 No.C2/30779/2013 dated 30.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No Sections of Law 1. Valavanur Police Station Crime No.260/2011 147, 341, 294(b), 506 (ii), 307, 302 IPC and Sec.3(1) Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. 2. Valavanur Police Station Crime No.261/2011 147, 457, 427 IPC 3. Valavanur Police Station Crime No.262/2011 147, 148, 457, 427, 506(i) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station in Crime No.814/2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 302 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 30.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 09.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 11.12.2013; remarks were called on 11.12.2013 and only on 23.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 24.12.2013; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 24.12.2013; on 29.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 02.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on 03.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is an unexplained delay of more than 5 days between 11.12.2013, 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 an unexplained delay of more than 5 days between 11.12.2013, 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 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.C2/30779/2013 dated 30.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Balaraman, Son of Subburayan, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.