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. 1352/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 16.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime No. 918 of 2003 148, 149, 341, 307, 302 r/w 109 and 120(b) IPC 2. T-13 Kundrathur Police Station Crime No. 1473 of 2013 392 IPC 3. T-15 SRMC Police Station Crime No. 1179 of 2013 341, 294(b), 392, 506(ii) IPC 4. T-15 SRMC Police Station Crime No. 1249 of 2013 341, 294(b), 392, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 04.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-15 SRMC Police Station in Crime No. 1279 of 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 16.10.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 31.10.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 04.11.2013; remarks were called on 05.11.2013 and only on 28.11.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 30.11.2013; the Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 30.11.2013; on 04.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 05.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 09.12.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than ten (10) days between 05.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 28.11.2013, the date on which remarks were received, excluding holidays. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than ten (10) days between 05.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 28.11.2013, 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 Memo No. 1352/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 16.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely M. Syed Buhariin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution 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.