Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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 BDFGISSV No.1634 of 2013 dated 16.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case : S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 T-13 Kunrathur Police Station Crime No.1639/2013 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-13 Kunrathur Police Station in Crime No.1641/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 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 16.11.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 26.11.2013; remarks were called on 26.11.2013 and only on 09.12.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 10.12.2013; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on the same day; on 17.12.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 18.12.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 20.12.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than fifteen (15) days between 26.11.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 09.12.2013, 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 BDFGISSV No.1634 of 2013 dated 16.11.2013is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Sivanandhanin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution 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.