Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the sister 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.516/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 24.07.2013. 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 Crime No.1711/2012 379 IPC 2 K-1 Sembium Police Station Crime No.1713/2012 341, 324, 506(ii) IPC 3 K-1 Sembium Police Station Crime No.1068/2013 341, 307 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-1 Sembium Police Station in Crime No.1074/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 392, 353 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 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 24.07.2013; the petitioner made a representation to the detaining authority on 19.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 22.11.2013; remarks were called on 22.11.2013 and only on 03.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 05.12.2013; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 05.12.2013; on 10.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 16.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 17.12.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than five days between 22.11.2013, the date on which the remarks were called and 03.12.2013, the date on which the 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 days between 22.11.2013, the date on which the remarks were called and 03.12.2013, the date on which the 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.516/BDFGISSV/2013dated 24.07.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Pachaiappanin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.