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 second respondent passed in Memo No. 1482/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 30.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station, Crime No.228/2013 448, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC 2. E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station, Crime No.1495/2013 302 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station, in Crime No.1499/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed 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 08.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 09.12.2013; remarks were called on 11.12.2013 and only on 02.01.2014 remarks were received and file was submitted on 03.01.2014; the Under Secretary dealt with on 03.01.2014, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 03.01.2014; on 07.01.2014, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it dated Nil and it was sent to the detenu dated Nil. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 11.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 02.01.2014, the date on which remarks were received, excluding holidays. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 11.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 02.01.2014, 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 Memo No.1482/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 30.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely, Gowthamin 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.