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 BDFGISSV No. 1197 of 2013, dated 01.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. S-12 Chitlapakkam Police Station Crime No. 888 of 2011 Girl Missing @ 366A, 376 IPC 2. S-12 Chitlapakkam Police Station Crime No. 945 of 2013 Girl Missing @ 366(A), 376 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-12 Chitlapakkam Police Station in Crime No. 1244 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 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 01.10.2013; the petitioner made a representation to the detaining authority on 12.10.2013 and it was received by the competent authority on 14.10.2013; remarks were called on 15.10.2013 and only on 19.10.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 28.10.2013; the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 28.10.2013; on 28.10.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejected it on 31.10.2013 and it was sent to the detenu on 04.11.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of nearly five days between 19.10.2013, the date on which the remarks were received and 28.10.2013, the date on which the file was submitted, excluding holidays. The said delay is not explained by the competent authority. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of nearly five days between 19.10.2013, the date on which the remarks were received and 28.10.2013, the date on which the file was submitted, 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. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSV No. 1197 of 2013, dated 01.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Swatimarthandanin this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.