Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of the detenu and the 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 No.711/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 15.8.2013. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 15.8.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr. No.225/2010 341, 324, 326 and 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C. 2 H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr. No.779/2010 341, 323 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 3 H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr. No.794/2010 341, 384, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 4 H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.1329/2011 341, 384 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 5 H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.389/2012 341, 392 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 6 H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.393/2012 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) 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 8.8.2013 at 10.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, G.2 Periyamedu Police Station, in Crime No.655 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 Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai on the same day and 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 dated 18.11.2013, 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. 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 15.8.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 18.11.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 20.11.2013, for which the remarks called on 21.11.2013 were received on 20.2.2014. On submission of the file on 20.2.2014, 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 27.2.2014. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 28.2.2014. 7. In this whole process, there occurred an inordinate delay, 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 No.711/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 15.8.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Vadivel, son of Sekar, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.