Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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 Memo No. 843/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 29.08.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-5, Pallavaram Police Station Crime No. 784 of 2010 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC 2. S-5, Pallavaram Police Station Crime No. 3998 of 2012 147, 148, 363, 302 r/w 149 r/w 34 and 302 r/w 201 IPC 3. S-5, Pallavaram Police Station Crime No. 368 of 2013 147, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC 4. S-5, Pallavaram Police Station Crime No. 386 of 2013 341, 294(b), 392 r/w 397, 427, 336 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 14.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-5, Pallavaram Police Station Crime No. 1011 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 392 r/w 397, 336, 427 & 506 (ii) 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 29.08.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 10.10.2013 and 08.11.2013 and they were received by the competent authority on 17.10.2013 and 11.11.2013; remarks were called on 17.10.2013 and 11.11.2013 and only on 28.10.2013 and 29.11.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 29.10.2013 and 02.12.2013; the Under Secretary dealt with it on 29.10.2013 and 02.12.2013, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 29.10.2013 and 02.12.2013; on 31.10.2013 and 04.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 29.10.2013 and 02.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 05.11.2013 and 05.12.2013. 6. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 11.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 29.11.2013, 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 second respondent in BDFGISSSV No. 843 of 2013 dated 29.08.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Prem Kumar S/o Arulraj 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.