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 D.O. No. 83 of 2013-C2, dated 12.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Kadaladi Police Station Crime No. 257 of 2013 457, 380 IPC 2. Kadaladi Police Station Crime No. 280 of 2013 457, 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 15.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Kadaladi Police Station in Crime No. 310 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 394 IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been filed. 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 12.09.2013; the petitioner's representation dated Nil was received by the competent authority on 18.10.2013; remarks were called on 21.10.2013 and only on 28.10.2013 remarks were received and file was submitted on 29.10.2013; the Under Secretary as well as the Deputy Secretary dealt with it on 29.10.2013; on 31.10.2013, the Minister (Electricity, Prohibition and Excise) dealt with it and rejection letter was prepared on 05.11.2013 and the same was served on the detenu on 08.11.2013. 6. Verification of the above dates and events would clearly show that there is unexplained delay of more than five days i.e. between 21.10.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 28.10.2013, the date on which remarks were received, 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 more than five days i.e. between 21.10.2013, the date on which remarks were called for and 28.10.2013, 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. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in D.O. No. 83 of 2013-C2 dated 12.09.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Harikrishnan in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned 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.