Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother 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 second respondent passed in No.1703/2013 dated 24.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 J-5 Sashtri Nagar Police Station, Crime No.656/2010 384 IPC 2 J-5 Sashtri Nagar Police Station, Crime No.664/2010 379 IPC 3 R-4 Soundarapandianar Angadi Police Station, Crime No.112/2012 420 IPC 4 E-2 Royapettah Police Station, Crime No.675/2013 379 IPC 5 E-2 Royapettah Police Station, Crime No.693/2013 379 IPC 6 E-2 Royapettah Police Station, Crime No.878/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 08.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, E-2 Royapettah Police Station, in Crime No.897/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) 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 24.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 30.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 05.12.2013; remarks were called on 05.12.2013 and only on 23.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 23.12.2013; the Under Secretary dealt with it on 23.12.2013, the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 23.12.2013; on 29.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejection letter prepared on 30.01.2014 and it was sent to the detenu on 31.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 15 days between 05.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 23.12.2013, 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 15 days between 05.12.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 23.12.2013, 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 in No.1703/2013 dated 24.11.2013is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely, Jamaludeenin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.