Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu and he 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. 1450/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 27.10.2013. 2. The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Crime No. 640 of 2010 306 IPC 2. S-6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Crime No. 3814 of 2012 447, 448, 392, 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of TNPPDL Act 3. S-6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Crime No. 3877 of 2012 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 427 and 506(ii) IPC 4. S-13 Chromepet Police Station Crime No. 6200 of 2012 384, 506(ii) IPC @ 147, 148, 384, 506(ii) IPC r/w 149 IPC 5. S-13 Chromepet Police Station Crime No. 6201 of 2012 384, 506(ii) IPC @ 384, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC 6. S-6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Crime No. 472 of 2013 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 384 and 506(ii) IPC. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 11.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-6 Sankar Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 1292 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 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. 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 27.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority dated 12.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 19.11.2013; remarks were called on 19.11.2013 and only on 27.11.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 28.11.2013; the Under Secretary dealt with it on 28.11.2013, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 29.11.2013; on 03.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 05.12.2013 and the rejected letter sent to the detenu on 9.12.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 5 days between 19.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 27.11.2013, 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. 1450 of 2013 dated 27.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Raghu @ Raghukumar, S/o Ramalingam, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.