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 first respondent passed in Memo No. 1486/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 30.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. F-1 Chindadripet Police Station Crime No. 1065 of 2010 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC 2. F-1 Chindadripet Police Station Crime No. 540 of 2011 341, 323, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC 3. F-1 Chindadripet Police Station Crime No. 73 of 2012 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC 4. F-1 Chindadripet Police Station Crime No. 102 of 2013 341, 354, 324, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC 5. F-1 Chindadripet Police Station Crime No. 398 of 2013 341, 324, 336 r/w 34 IPC and 3(i) TNPP DL Act The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.10.2013 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Law & Order, F-1 Chindadripet Police Station in Crime No. 1074 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 384, 307, 336, 427 and 506(2) 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 30.10.2013 the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 11.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 22.11.2013; remarks were called on 22.11.2013 and only on 02.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 02.12.2013; 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 05.12.2013. 6. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than five (5) days between 22.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 02.12.2013, 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 first respondent in Memo No. 1486/BEFGISSV of 2013 dated 30.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Seenivasanin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.