Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu himself is the petitioner. The detenu has been branded as a "Bootlegger" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed in Cr.M.P.No.31/2013 C1 dated, 22.10.2013. As per the grounds of detention dated 22.10.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 Gobichettipalayam Prohibition Enforcement Wing Cr. No.540/2011 Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 2 Gobichettipalayam Prohibition Enforcement Wing Cr. No.673/2011 Sections 4(1)(k) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 3 Gobichettipalayam Prohibition Enforcement Wing Cr. No.56/2012 Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 4 Gobichettipalayam Prohibition Enforcement Wing Cr. No.137/2012 Section 4(1)(k) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 5 Gobichettipalayam Prohibition Enforcement Wing Cr. No.469/2012 Section 4(1)(k) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 6 Gobichettipalayam Prohibition Enforcement Wing Cr. No.477/2012 Section 4(1)(k) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 7 Gobichettipalayam Prohibition Enforcement Wing Cr. No.655/2012 Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 8 Bungalowpudur Police Station Cr.No.64/2013 Section 4(1)(k) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 9 Bungalowpudur Police Station Cr.No.86/2013 Section 4(1)(a), 4(1)(k) and 4(1) (I) OF of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 02.10.2013 at 16.00 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Sub Inspector of Police, Bungalawpudur Police Station, in Crime No.299 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 4(1)(a) read with 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Gobichettipalayam on the same day and remanded to judicial custody. 4. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 5. 4. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition. 5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a delay in disposal of the representation dated 11.11.2013, 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. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 7. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has passed the order of detention on 22.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 11.11.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 14.11.2013, for which the remarks called on 18.11.2013 were received on 28.11.2013. On submission of the file on 28.11.2013, 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 3.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 5.12.2013. 8. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of more than 15 days, namely, between 18.11.2013 and 28.11.2013, excluding the holidays, 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. 9. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in Cr.M.P.No.31/2013 C1 dated, 22.10.2013 is set aside. The detenu – Elango @ Elangovan son of Ammaiappan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.