JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu Vinoth 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.938/BDFGISSV dated 09.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K.1, Sembium Police Station Cr.No.1156/2013 341, 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 IPC 2. K.9, Thiru Vi.Ka Nagar, Police Station Cr.No.1245/2013 341, 384, 506(ii) IPC 3. K.5, Peravallore Police Station Cr.No.1742/2013 341, 385 and 506 (ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 21.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K.5, Peravallore Police Station in Crime No.1746/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 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 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 09.09.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 26.09.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 28.09.2013; remarks were called on 30.09.2013 and only on 07.10.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day. The Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 10.10.2013; the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on 12.10.2013 and the Rejection letter was prepared on 17.10.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 18.10.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than five (5) days between 30.09.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 07.10.2013, 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 five (5) days between 30.09.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 07.10.2013, 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 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.938/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 09.09.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Vinoth, S/o.Sundar 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.