JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father 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 dated 21.10.2013 passed in Memo No.1394/BDFGISSV/2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-8 Neelankarai Police Station Crime No.685/2013 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC 2. J-8 Neelankarai Police Station Crime No.1356/2013 294(b), 384, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 29.9.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law & Order, J-8, Neelankarai Police Station in Crime No.1365/2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 336, 427, 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 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 21.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 25.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 28.11.2013; remarks were called on 28.11.2013 and only on 12.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 12.12.2013; the Under Secretary dealt with on 12.12.2013, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 12.12.2013; on 17.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 18.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 19.12.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of 15 days between 28.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 12.12.2013, 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 15 days between 28.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 12.12.2013, 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 detenu'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 dated 21.10.2013 in Memo No.1394/BDFGISSV/201 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Rajesh in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.