Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father 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. 1207/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 02.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. G-1, Vepery Police Station, Crime No. 682 of 2012 Section 380 IPC 2. G-1, Vepery Police Station, Crime No. 982 of 2012 Sections 457 and 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, G-1, Vepery Police Station in Crime No. 785 of 2013 for offences under Sections 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 05.11.2013, 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 02.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, the detenu made a representation dated 05.11.2013 to the authorities concerned, which was received on 08.11.2013, for which the remarks called on 11.11.2013 were received on 27.11.2013. On submission of the file on 23.12.2013, it was dealt with by the Deputy Secretary on the same day and thereafter, the file was submitted to the Minister on 29.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 31.01.2014, which was sent to the detenu on 03.02.2014. 6. In this whole process, there occurred an inordinate delay of 28 days, namely, between 11.11.2013 and 27.11.2013 as also between 27.11.2013 and 23.12.2013 (excluding holidays of 14 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. 6. In this whole process, there occurred an inordinate delay of 28 days, namely, between 11.11.2013 and 27.11.2013 as also between 27.11.2013 and 23.12.2013 (excluding holidays of 14 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 Jaheer Hussain, S/o Sapthar Hussain, made in Memo No. 1207/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 02.10.2013 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.