Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1105/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 24.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. G-2, Periyamedu Police Station, Crime No.561 of 2012 Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC 2. G-2, Periyamedu Police Station, Crime No.428 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 394 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 4 of TN Women Harassment Act 3. F-2, Egmore Police Station, Crime No.604 of 2013 Sections 341, 294(b), 384 and 506 (ii) IPC 4. G-1, Vepery Police Station, Crime No.662 of 2013 Sections 341, 448, 294(b), 384, 427 and 506(ii) IPC 5. G-2, Periyamedu Police Station, Crime No.784 of 2013 Section 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, G-2, Periyamedu Police Station in Crime No.786 of 2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 336, 392, 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 dated 18.10.2013, 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 24.09.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 18.10.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 25.10.2013, for which the remarks called on the same day were received on 16.12.2013. On submission of the file on 19.12.2013, 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 20.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected. 6. On submission of the file on 19.12.2013, 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 20.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected. 6. In this whole process, there occurred an inordinate delay of 36 days, namely, between 25.10.2013 and 16.12.2013 (excluding holidays of 16 days, 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 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Dinesh, S/o.Bhadrinarayanan, made in Memo No.1105/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 24.09.2013 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.