Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu and detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in Memo No.1633/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.11.2013. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 16.11.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 T.13 Kunrathur Police Station Cr. No.1639/2013 147, 148, 341 and 302 I.P.C. 3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 8.10.2013 at 17.30 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, T.13 Kundrathur Police Station, in Crime No.1641 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District on 9.10.2013 and the detenu was remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation, which is violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 6. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 16.11.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 25.11.2013, for which the remarks called on 30.12.2013 were received on 9.1.2014. 6. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 16.11.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 25.11.2013, for which the remarks called on 30.12.2013 were received on 9.1.2014. On submission of the file on 5.2.2014, it was dealt with by both the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 9.2.2014. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected. 7. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of more than 7 days, namely, between 30.12.2013 and 9.1.2014, excluding the holidays, which would definitely cause great prejudice to the detenu and amount to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated. 8. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in Memo No.1633/ BDFGISSV/2013 dated 16.11.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Deena @ Dinakaran son of Lakshmanan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 9. 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.