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 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1491/BDFGISSV/2013 dt.30.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 S6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Cr.No.815/2013 457 and 380 IPC 2 S6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1061/2013 457 and 380 IPC 3 S5 Pallavaram Police Station Cr.No.1036/2013 457 and 380 IPC 4 S6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1154/2013 457 and 380 IPC 5 S6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1167/2013 457 and 380 IPC 6 S6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1203/2013 457 and 380 IPC 7 S6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Cr.No.1254/2013 457 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the Inspector of Police, S5 Pallavaram Police Station in Crime No.1213/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294[b], 392, 427, 336, 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 30.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 05.04.2014 and it was received by the competent authority on 09.04.2014; remarks were called on the same day and only on 22.04.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day. The Deputy Secretary dealt with on the same day and the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on 24.04.2014 and the Rejection letter was prepared on 28.04.2014. 6. The Deputy Secretary dealt with on the same day and the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on 24.04.2014 and the Rejection letter was prepared on 28.04.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of ten [10] days between 09.04.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 22.04.2014, the date on which remarks were received [13 days]; and between 24.04.2014, the date on which the Minister has dealt with the case and 28.04.2014, the date on which rejection letter was prepared [4days] excluding holidays [7 days]. 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 Memo No.1491/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 30.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Elumalai @ Rajini Elumalai, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.