Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in proceedings No.487/2013 dated 22.7.2013. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 22.7.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr. No.765/2013 457 and 380 I.P.C. 2 V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr. No.910/2013 379 r/w 34 I.P.C. 3 V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr. No.982/2013 392 r/w 397 r/w 34 I.P.C. 4 V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.1057/2013 294(b), 323, 427, 392 and 397 I.P.C. 5 V.5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.1221/2013 379 I.P.C. 3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 16.7.2013 at 7.30 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, V.3 J.J.Nagar Police Station, in Crime No.775 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 323, 392 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Chennai on the same day and the detenu was remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 19.11.2013, 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. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 22.7.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 19.11.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 25.11.2013, for which the remarks were called on 26.11.2013 and received on 9.12.2013. On submission of the file on 10.12.2013, 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 16.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 18.12.2013. 7. In this whole process, there occurred an inordinate delay of more than five days namely, between 26.11.2013 and 9.12.2013, excluding the 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. 8. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in proceedings No.487/2013 dated 22.7.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Pandian, son of Arumugam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.