Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu is the brother-in-law of the petitioner. 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 D.O.No.90/2013-C2, dated 26.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case: S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 Tiruvannamalai P.E.W. Crime No.181/2012 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A)(ii), 4(1)(h) of TNP Act and Sections 6, 7 of RS Rules 2000 The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Arni Taluk Police Station and Arni Town Circle in Crime No.181/2012 for offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A)(ii), 4(1)(h) of TNP Act and Sections 6, 7 of RS Rules 2000 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed 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 26.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 02.12.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 03.12.2013; remarks were called on 08.01.2014 and only on 18.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on the same day; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 19.12.2013; on 24.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 26.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 02.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 08.01.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 18.12.2013, the date on which 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 10 days between 08.01.2014, the date on which remarks were called for and 18.12.2013, 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 second respondent inD.O.No.90/2013-C2, dated 26.11.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Augustian S/o. Masilamani, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.