Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as an Goonda as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 1st respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 1243 of 2013 dated 05.10.2013 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station, Crime No. 94 of 2012 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 2. T-13, Kundrathur Police Station, Crime No. 265 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC 3. E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No. 991 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 4. E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No. 1219 of 2013 Sections 379 IPC 5. E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No. 1283 of 2013 Sections 457 & 380 IPC 6. E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No. 1329 of 2013 Sections 457 & 381 IPC 7. E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No. 1345 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 8. E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No. 1493 of 2013 Sections 457 & 511 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 15.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station in Crime No. 1541 of 2013 for offences under Sections 3341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation 23.10.2013, 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. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 05.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 23.10.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 28.10.2013, for which the remarks called on 28.10.2013 were received on 07.11.2013. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 05.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 23.10.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 28.10.2013, for which the remarks called on 28.10.2013 were received on 07.11.2013. On submission of the file on 07.11.2013, 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 12.11.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 13.11.2013. 6. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of 6 days, namely, between 28.10.2013 and 07.11.2013 (excluding holidays falling on 2nd, 3rd, 9th and 10th of November 2013), 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. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 1st respondent, detaining the detenu Raji @ Rajikumar, S/o Saravanan, made in BDFGISSV No. 1243 of 2013 dated 05.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.