Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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 2nd respondent passed in C3.D.O.NO.96/2013 dated 01/11/2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 D-6 Anna Square Police Station, Chennai Crime no.231/2013 379 IPC 2 Vellore South Crime Police Station, Crime No.984/2013 394 IPC 3 Bagayam Police Station, Crime No.929/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.08.2013 by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Vellore South Crime Police Station in Crime No.1064/2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 392, 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 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 01.11.2013; the detenu made a representation to the detaining authority on 11.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 13.11.2013; remarks were called on 19.11.2013; and only on 10.12.2013 remarks were received; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 26.12.2013; the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it on the same day, viz., 26.12.2013 and rejected it on 17.01.2014. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than 10 days between 19.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 10.12.2013, 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. 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 C3.D.O.NO.96/2013 dated 01/11/2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely RAM KUMAR, S/o MURTHY, in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.