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 first respondent passed in Memo No.1174/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 30.09.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M.5 Ennore Police Station Crime No.1880/2013 379 IPC 2. M.5 Ennore Police Station Crime No.1890/2013 392 IPC 3. M.5 Ennore Police Station Crime No.1914/2013 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC 4. M.6 Manali Police Station Crime No.1100/2013 379 IPC 5. M.6 Manli Police Station Crime No.1214/2013 379 IPC 6. Manali Police Station Crime No.1240/2013 M 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC 7. M.8 Sathangadu Police Station Crime No.1542/2013 379 IPC 8. M.8 Sathangadu Police Station Crime No.1560/2013 379 IPC 9. M.7 Manali New Town Police Station Crime No.795/2013 341, 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 08.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, M.7 Manali New Town Police Station in Crime No.802/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 506(ii) IPC r/w 397 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 30.09.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 22.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 25.11.2013; remarks were called on 25.11.2013 and only on 10.12.2013, remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day; the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 10.12.2013; on 17.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejection letter was prepared and sent to the detenu on 18.12.2013. 6. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 25.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 10.12.2013, 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 first respondent in Memo No.1174/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 30.09.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Ethiraj @ Ethu in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.