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 Cr.M.P.No.5/2013 dated 12.9.2013. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 12.9.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 Coonoor Town Police Station Cr. No.181/2010 379 I.P.C. 2 Udhagamandalam Town Central Police Station Cr. No.561/2011 457 and 380 I.P.C. 3 Udhagamandalam Town Central Police Station Cr. No.801/2011 397 I.P.C. 4 Pudumund Police Station Cr.No.102/2012 457 and 380 I.P.C. 5 Udhagamandalam Town West Police Station Cr.No. 319/2012 454 and 380 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 20.8.2013 at 9.30 hours, which led to the registration of a case in Crime No.76 of 2013 on the file of the Pudhumund Police Station for the offences under Sections 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagai on the same day 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 dated 19.9.2013, 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 12.9.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 19.9.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 25.9.2013, for which the remarks called on 26.9.2013 were received on 8.10.2013. On submission of the file on 9.10.2013, 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 12.10.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 17.10.2013. 7. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of more than seven days, namely, between 26.9.2013 and 8.10.2013, 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 Cr.M.P.No.5/2013 dated 12.9.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Karthick, son of Mani, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.