Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the son of the detenu and the detenu has been branded as a Goonda as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the first respondent passed in No. 1377 of 2013, dated 20.10.2013. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 20.10.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1. P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station Cr. No. 706 of 2010 364(A) IPC R/w 34 IPC 2. P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station Cr. No. 1346 of 2013 341, 384, 392 and 506 (ii) IPC 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 10.10.2013 at 11.30 hours, which led to the registration of a case by the Inspector of Police, P-6 Kodungaiyur Police Station, in Crime No. 1729 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 448, 342, 294(b), 336, 427, 397, 307 and 506 (ii) IPC. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested and produced before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 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. 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 02.12.2013, 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. 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 20.10.2013 and on receipt of a copy of detention order, a representation dated 02.12.2013 was made to the authorities concerned, which was received on 04.12.2013, for which the remarks called on 04.12.2013 were received on 16.12.2013. On submission of the file on 16.12.2013, 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 18.12.2013. Finally the representation of the detenu was decided to be rejected vide letter dated 20.12.2013. 8. In this whole process, there occurred a delay of more than 5 days, namely, between 04.12.2013 and 16.12.2013, 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 No. 1377 of 2013, dated 20.10.2013, is set aside. The detenu Williams Stephen, son of Santhana Thiraviyam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.