JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J., 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1411/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 23.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. H-4, Korukkupet Police Station, Crime No.485 of Sections 341, 2013 294(b), 323, 385 and 506(ii) IPC 2. P-1, Pulianthope Police Station, Crime No.1736 of 2013 Sections 341, 323, 385 and 506(ii) IPC 3. H-4, Korukkupet Police Station, Crime No.500 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 384, 427, 336, 307 and 506(ii) IPC 4. H-1, Washermenpet Police Station, Crime No.981 of 2013 Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 384 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, H-4, Korukkupet Police Station in Crime No.519 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 384, 427, 336, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 18.11.2013, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 23.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 18.11.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 04.12.2013, for which the remarks called on 04.12.2013 were received on 30.12.2013. On submission of the file on 02.01.2014, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 02.01.2014 and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 07.01.2014. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 27.01.2014, which was sent to the detenu on 29.01.2014. 6. On submission of the file on 02.01.2014, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 02.01.2014 and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 07.01.2014. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 27.01.2014, which was sent to the detenu on 29.01.2014. 6. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 14 days, namely, between 04.12.2013 and 30.12.2013 (excluding holidays), which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Velu @ Aruppu Velu, S/o.Sundarraj, made in Memo No.1411/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 23.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.