Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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 BDFGISSV No. 1474 of 2013 dated 29.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-14, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Crime No. 481 of 2012 Sections 341, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC 2. S-14, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Crime No. 519 of 2012 Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 307 and 506(ii) IPC 3. S-14, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Crime No. 264 of 2013 Sections 341, 427, 336, 294(b), 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC 4. S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Crime No. 1345 of 2013 Section 379 IPC @ 392 IPC 5. S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Crime No. 1459 of 2013 Sections 341 and 392 IPC 6. S-14, Peerkankaranai Police Station, Crime No. 1330 of 2013 Sections 341 and 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 29.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-15, Selaiyur Police Station in Crime No. 1493 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 384, 336, 427, 392, 397 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 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 29.10.2013 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 21.11.2013, for which the remarks called on 21.11.2013 were received on 03.12.2013. On submission of the file on 05.12.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 10.12.2013. On submission of the file on 05.12.2013, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 10.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 16.12.2013, which was sent to the detenu on 18.12.2013. 6. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 9 days, namely, between 21.11.2013 and 03.12.2013 (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 Surya @ Pulsar Surya, S/o Kutty, made in BDFGISSV No. 1474 of 2013 dated 29.10.2013 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. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude 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.